Page 1
001035
335
9/25
APPLICANT' RESPONSE TO CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM MS 59 AND
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.
TO: . City Council members
FROM: David Stebbins, project # 51076
SUBJECT: 1. The Stebbins residence- legal response to the City Attorney Memorandum
concerning whether additional findings are required in order to deny appeal
ofthe above project and uphold unanimous Planning Commission vote, and
alternatively;
2. Supplemental criteria confirming Planning Commission findings
OVERVIEW
On March 1, 2007. the Planning commission unanimously approved a Coastal Development
Permit, Site Development Pennit and Mitigated Negative Declaration for my house. The vote
was 6-0, all 17 required findings were made. This decision has been appealed. The appeal was
continued in order to determine whether additional findings or criteria need to be included. The
City Attorney has provided a memorandum that says yes. I disagree as matter of law.
I have attached a copy ofa responsive memorandum of Law from Evelyn F. Heidelberg, a
respected land use Attorney with Procopio. Cory, Hargreaves& Savitch (attachment #3). A copy
ofthe City Attorney Memorandum is attached thereto. I urge the reader to review each
memorandum in detail as my comments are intended as a brief summary.
THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 3/1/07 WERE
SUFFICIENT PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND NEED NOT
BE SUPPLEMENTED.
The City Attorney suggests that the land development code incorporates 44cfr60.6(a) by
reference. The analysis violates a fundamental principal of statutory construction because there is
another section ofthe land development code that specifically outlines the necessary findings
needed for a deviation. A special statute dealing with a subject always controls over the more
general.
Page 2
001036
The city attorney correctly states that reference to council Policy 600-14 was removed into the
land development code, but then goes on to suggest that council policy 600-14 "trumps" the land
development code. As suggested by Council Policy No. 000-01, Council Policy should not be a
required part of a land development decision without being incorporated specifically by
reference. Previously, when the council has wanted its policy incorporated into the LDC it has
done so (see Heidelberg memorandum); it did not do so in this case.
The City Attorney argument-that a general statement in a section defining applicable regulations
which says "all other applicable requirements and regulations of FEMA apply" is incorporated by
reference into another entirely different section that specifically identifies standards for granting
deviations from those very same regulations-defies logic, principals of statutory construction, and
constitutional rights to due process. Such an interpretation is void for vagueness and incorrect as
a matter of law.
According to the memorandum, I am required to make additional findings on top ofthe those
aiready ratified by the Planning commission. Apart from the illegality and unfairness of this last
minute legal requirement as it relates to my project (I have spent three years and $50,000 in city
fees to get this far),! believe the City .Attorney's rationale has terrible policy implications. This
interpretation could be used as a trick by any opponent of any project in an effort to create wide
spread uncertainty and confusion as each homeowner or builder tries to figure out which
voluminous federal regulation, state regulation or council policy is or is not incorporated into the
building code.
The city Attorney memorandum also contradicts the practice and understanding of Development
services staff in these matters. One must remember that FEMA and NFIP do not administer flood
plain regulations. That authority is exclusively local and the Land Development code has already
incorporated those portions of NFIP gand FEMA guidelines deemed appropriate. When so
incorporated the rules are specific and clear; one does not need to look elsewhere for authority or
interpretation. It is unwise from a policy and practical standpoint to do so
Therefore, I request that the city council decide that the findings made by the planning
commission on 3/1/07 were the only required findings. These findings are correct and all
inclusive pursuant to the Land Development Code. I request that the appeal be denied. However,
if the Council elects to follow the recommendations ofthe City Attorney, I submit the following
background and proposed additional findings/criteria which I believe can easily be made;
Page 3
001037
IN THE ALTERNATIVE:
THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SUGGESTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AS
APPLICABLE TO THE STEBBINS RESIDENCE SUPPORT THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONS FINDINGS.
GUIDELINES
It is important to note that the term findings in this context may not be appropriate. NFIP in their
training manual used the word "guidelines" The NFIP manual also seems to indicate a primary
concern of insurance underwriting not public safety. They exist to weed oul inappropriate
projects, not to prevent Deviations. " NFIP regulations do not address appeals...Follow the
procedures used in your zoning ordinance as these are usually prescribed by state law." "
Because variances may expose insurable property to higher flood risk, NFIP regulations set
suideiines for granting them." NFIP ordinance administration unit 7. case 7-50.
These "guidelines" also appear in 44cfr60.6(a) and are mirrored in council policy 600-14. They
are however just guidelines not findings. This means that while we can use the word findings or
criteria, it is more likely that these are mere considerations to guide you as decision makers when
confirming the existing findings rather than rules in and of themselves.
HARDSHIP
The word hardship does not appear in the LDC as it applies to this project. Regardless, the
properly in question is a unique property with significant hardships. The existing structure is
dilapidated and already in violation of fema regulations because the lowest floor is two feet
beiow Base flood elevation. To do nothing would doom the occupants and the entire
neighborhood to an ongoing and unprotected risk of flood damage.
The new design eliminates this risk to the extent it exists.
If no deviation is allowed, the first floor of any alternate design would be 3'.10" above grade.
The garage ceiling would be 7 feet above grade. The resulting finished structure would be almost
a perfect cube or rectangle. As opposed to a friendly 7' long roof line at 30 feet, any other design
would have a long roof line at 30' for almost the entire envelope. Aside from the esthetics, this
structure would not be approved due to the bulk and scale constraints ofthe building code and
the ob precise plan. In effect, there is no alternative design absent a deviation. .
It is undisputed by city staff, applicant's experts and the appellant that the source of any flooding
Page 4
001038
is the inadequate city storm drain system. Since the City is responsible for the potential flooding
(see councilpolicy 800-4), it would be an extreme hardship to refuse to allow the applicant to
correct the problem ..especially since applicanl is willing to us his own funds and is asking
nothing in return.
I have agreed to sign an indemnity for the city. If this parcel were just one foot outside the flood
zone or if the city corrected the storm drain system, I couid build a much laiger.habitable space
below grade without any deviation. Therefore, this design is a compromise on the part ofthe
applicant effectively reduces his property value. The situation was created through no fault of my
own, yet the indemnity averts potential city financial or legal liabilities.
The entire block is dilapidated. Parking is currently done illegally in the setbacks by all the
occupants ofthe block. Since there is no alternative design available given the constraints ofthe
building code, the entire block would be subject to the same hardship as the applicant and this
very valuable area ofthe city would continue to be an eyesore.
This parcel is a subset ofa subset ofa subset; it exists in the only zip code in the county that
applies an far of .70 to a zoning designation of rm2-4. Il will have a marvelous view ofthe ocean
which makes this type of underground parking feasible (economically). It is a tiny parcel which
limits the opportunity for parking and articulation and step backs. It is in the coastal zone. It has
height restrictions.
BALANCING
The above facts, the source ofthe flood zone and limited development alternatives justify the
conclusion that a failure to fmd a hardship and allow the owner to develop his parcel effectively
deprives the applicanl ofa reasonable use of his property.
A hardship finding is a balancing act according to FEMA regulations. It is not a fixed quantity
and does not occur in a vacuum. In this instance, one must balance the hardship with the purpose
ofthe regulation. The regulation has only one purpose; public safety. City Slaff, my engineers,
my architects and the planningcommission after two hearings foundthe concept to be safe. Not
even the appellant has provided any evidence that would suggest this design will be unsafe.
NFIP training manuals suggest that when granting a hardship deviation the owner should be
encouraged to place all habitable space above the BFE and minimize "non-conforming areas '^
has been done in this case. Clearly, the applicant has done everything possible to eliminate any
safety issues.
Generally NFIP manuals and FEMA regulations focus on habitable space instead of parking
because habitable areas are their primary concern. The only the rationale stated in the regulations
for generally disfavoring below grade parking in residences (as opposed to commercial
properties and mixed use properties where it is allowed), is that FEMA does not want residents
Page 5
001039
hiding in their basements thinking they are safe in a hurricane. This rationale does not apply to
Southern California where storms of hurricane magnitude simply do not occur and have not
been confirmed in recorded history .
The rationale concerning underground parking certainly does not apply to the applicant's house
where any occupant, even in the severest event, would simply remain above ground in the. flood
proofed habitable space. Therefore, the rationale for ofthe regulation in this narrow instance is
practically irrelevant and the balancing heavily favors the applicant
CONCLUSION
A finding of exceptional hardship can be made. The technical need is great, the alternatives are
practically useless and any danger to the public is non-existent. The algebra that is the "balancing
ofthe purpose ofthe ordinance with the hardship ofthe applicant" convincingly favors the
applicant.
The house design has been well vetted by city staff, city engineering and the Planning
Commission has made every finding needed for this deviation under the regulations. Further, The
parcel is so unique thai the odds of further similar development will be limited to this block. This
very uniqueness and the lack of viable deveiopment alternatives for this parcel justifies a
hardship finding. Council policy 800-14 is not meant to be a straight jacket.
After balancing the hardships ofthe applicant with the purpose ofthe regulations, considering
the opportunity to make the block safer and more desirable along with the lack of alternatives to
the project and the inapplicability ofthe some ofthe rationale behind the regulations pertaining
to underground parking in a flood zone as they apply in this case, it is clear that this is precisely
the type of project that meets the criteria for a deviation. Therefore, failure to grant the
applicant's request would result in an undue hardship
· NOTE I HAVE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL CRITERIA (ATTACHMENT #1)
1 HAVE ALSO ATTACHED A COPY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE ON 3/1/07 (ATTACHMENTS)
·TOGETHER THESE ARE ALL OF THE FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
MEMORANDUM.
·PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL CRITERIA #3 IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FINDING AS PLANNING COMMISSION
SENSITIVE LANDS FINDING ttl
·PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL CRITERIA #4 IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS PLANING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL
FINDING SENSITIVE LANDS DEVIATION FROM FEMA REGULATIONS # 1&2.
·* NOTE THAT ANY ONE OF THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA BELOW (NOS. 2A - E), WILL IS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW A HARDSHIP.
Page 6
001041
ATTACHMENT
#1
ADDITIONAI
CRITERIA
Page 7
0(1043
ATTACHMENT#1
ADDITIONAL DEVIATION CRITERIA PURSUANT TO COUNCIL POLICY 600-14
AND 44CFR 60.6(A)
After due consideration of thefollow ingfour criteria, and balancing the hardship ofthe
applicant with the purpose ofthe deviation guidelines, the City Council upon showing of good
cause hereby Confirms the 17 Findings made by the Planning Commission March I, 2007 on
project 51076, Coastal Development Permit # 147134, site development permit #. 389939 which
attached hereto as attachment. #2.
1. Good and sufficient cause exists to grant deviation:
Good and sufficient cause exists because there are no alternative designs that are more
appropriate. Pursuant to NFIP Ordinance administration unit 7-50, guidelines for deviations exist
''to screen out situations in which alternatives to variances are most appropriate". Here there are
none. (Finding 2A beiow is hereby incorporated by reference). The flood area involved is a
minor one with low velocity floods. The property is a small unique lot and meets all the physical
criteria for a Deviation from FEMA regulations. The new design is. Safe and will replace an
existing unsafe structure where all habitable areas are below the base flood elevation. All other
necessary findings have been made and the project and its deviation has been well vetted by the
City Engineer, staff and the Planning Commission.(see Planning Commission resolution
unanimously approved March I, 2007 - attachment #2).
2. Failure to grant a deviation would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant:
A. The subject property is a legally developable lot that is significantly substandard by both the
current minimum area requirement and dimensional criteria ofthe iand development code for
parcels within the RM2-4 zone. The minimum lot area on which RM2-4 regulations are
predicated is 6000 square-feet. Likewise, the minimum lot width is 50 feet and the minimum
depth is 90 feet. By comparison, the Stebbins property is only 2500 square feet in total area with
a lot width of 25 feet Based on the limitations due to the substandard lot size there are few, if
any design alternatives which would allow for a reasonable use ofthe property. Any alternative
design without a deviation would require that the lowest habitable floor be 3'10" above grade.
The top ofthe garage would be over 7 feet and would reduce the habitable space by the size of
the garage. The resulting offset would create significant design problems. The resulting
elevation would be a large rectangular cube.
Therefore, alternative designs of comparable or even lesser size would not provide the
articulation, offsetting planes and architectural interests recommended in the Ocean Beach
Precise Plan and the land development code and could.not be approved. This creates an
exceptional hardship.
Page 8
001044
B. Exceptional hardship exists because the existing structure should be considered in
noncompliance with FEMA standards and the City of San Diego Land Deveiopment Code
because the first floor is currently two feet below the Base Flood Elevation. To the extent that a
flood risk exists, this property in its present state is potentially dangerous to its occupants.
Whereas, in the proposed design the entire habitable floor is flood proofed above the base flood
elevation per FEMA guidelines. Therefore, allowing a deviation for flood proofed below grade
parking.is less ofa nonconforming condition than maintaining an obsolete structure where all
habitable area is 2 feet below the base flood elevation.
C. Exceptional hardship exists because the existing structure is dilapidated as is the rest ofthe
block. The flood risks are relatively minor because the entire block property is encircled by a
flood zone x (no special building rules apply for this type of zone and properties are generally not
at risk from flood). This zone is not subject to tidal or river flooding.
The characteristics ofthe Flood Zone A applicable to this properly is theoretical flooding of low
velocity and shallow depth with long warning times. The lot is small and substandard and meets
all the physical criteria stated in the FEMA guidelines for deviation. The record indicates that
this flood zone is created by a deficiency ofthe city storm drain system in a theoretical 100 year
storm; it would be an unjust and exceptional hardship to deny the property owner the
opportunity to uuim a saicr struci-ure.
D. The purpose ofthe regulation regarding underground parking in residential structures is public
safety. Specifically, hurricane prone communities floods combine with hurricane force winds
capable of removing structures from foundations; the concern is that homeowners will "shelter in
place" and think the basement is safe. This is the rationale for discouraging beiow grade parking
in residential buildings. This rationale does not apply in San Diego where hurricanes do not form
and have not been confirmed in recorded history. Accordingly, even in a 100 year flood event,
there would be no tendency to shelter in the basement. In this limited instance, the rationale for
the regulation is very weak or does not apply. Therefore, when balancing the purpose ofthe
regulation with the hardship ofthe applicant, the unique characteristics ofthe land (as described
above and elsewhere on the record), the cause ofthe potential flooding and the characteristics
thereof, heavily favor of the applicant.
E. When balanced against the purpose ofthe ordinance and the lack of risk to the public, a
hardship finding is justified in the peculiar circumstances ofthe appellant's land. Furthermore, a
denial of this deviation would constitute a hardship on the property owner because it would limit
or eliminate his ability to develop and improve this dilapidated and unsafe property in a
reasonable manner with a new structure that conforms to the extent possible with the land
development code and at a bulk and scale consistent with the Ocean Beach Precise Plan. All
habitable space is one foot above BFE pursuant to guidelines. The below grade parking area is
flood proofed and will significantly reduce and probably eliminate any risk of fiood damage,
enhance the surrounding community and provide muchneeded off street parking on a
substandard lot.
Page 9
001045
3. Granting the deviation does not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public
safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization ofthe
public, or conflict with existing laws or ordinances.
The proposed development including the flood proofed basement garage is taking place in the
100 year fiood plain and not within the flood way. The site is currently developed and the new
construction will occupy substantially the same footprint as the old structure. The.permit as
conditioned shall require the owner to flood proof all structures subject to inundation. The owner
shall bear all costs of flood proofing, and there will be no expense to the city. The owner will
record a covenant not to occupy the basement so there will be public record and notice to any
future owner that the basement area is for parking only.
The city Engineer has determined that the deviation lo allow the structure to be built under the
BFE rather than 2
,
0
n
as required by the land development code will not cause an increase in flood
height. The elevation requirement is for the protection of structures and its contents. Lessening
the requirement does not result in additional threats to public safety, extra-ordinary public
expense, or create a public nuisance.
4. The variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
The proposed development is taking place in Flood Zone A . The Land Deveiopment Code
requires the lowest floor including basement to be elevated 2 feet above base flood elevation.
FEMA requires the lowest floor to be elevated one foot above BFE. The project requests a
deviation for a below grade parking and storage area which will be dry flood proofed one foot
above BFE in accordance with FEMA technical bulletin 3-93. This requires a deviation.
The deviation is necessary because the lot is substandard and in order to build a modest structure
(1750 sq. ft.), the parking area must be located below ground so that it may be excluded from the
FAR; this area will be only for parking, storage andaccess to the house. No habitable area will be
below BFE, All other aspects of this house comply precisely with all other applicable provisions
of the iand developmenl code.
Potential flooding in this area is not from the river or from the ocean: Any flooding is theoretical
and would possibly occur in a 100 year event.due.to the inadequacy ofthe storm drain system.
Hydrology indicated this flooding would be slow, low velocity and with long warning times.
Nevertheless, all habitable portions ofthe property will be protected one foot above BFE and the
non habitable portions below will be dry flood proofed.
Page 10
001047
ATTACHMENT
#2
Planning Commission
Findings
Page 11
001049
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 147134
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 389939
STEBBINS RESIDENCE [MMRP]
WHEREAS, DAVID STEBBINS, Owner/Permittee, filed an application with the City of San
Diego for a permit to demolish an existing one-story duplex, and construct a new, three-story
single family residence above basement garage (as described in and by reference to the approved
Exhibits "A" and corresponding conditions of approval for the associated Permits No. 147134
and 389939), on portions ofa 0.057-acre site;
WHEREAS, the project site is located at 5166 West Point Loma Boulevard in the RM 2-4 Zone,
Coastal Overlay Zone (appealable-area). Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone, First Public
Roadway, Beach Parking Impact Overlay Zone, Airport Approach Overlay Zone, Airport
Environs Overlay Zone, and the 100-year Flood-plain Overlay Zone, within the Ocean Beach
Precise Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan;
WHEREAS, the project site is legally described as Lot 14, Block 90 of Ocean Bay Beach Map
No ! ! 89'
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2007, the Planning Commission ofthe City of San Diego considered
Coastal Development Pennit No. 147134, and Site Developmenl Permit No. 389939. pursuant to
the Land Development Code ofthe City of San Diego; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE FT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission ofthe City of San Diego as follows:
That the Pianning Commission adopts the following written Findings, dated February 8, 2007 .
FINDINGS:
Coastal Development Permit - Section 126.0708
1. The proposed coastal development will not encroach upon any existing physical access
way that is legally used by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in a
Local Coastal Program land use plan; and the proposed coastal development wUI enhance
and protect public views to and along the ocean an d other scenic coastal areas as specified
in the Local Coastal Program land use plan.
All development would occur on private property, and would be within the 30-foot coastal height
limit Additionally, the proposed project will not encroach upon any adjacent existing physical
access way used by the public nor will it adversely affect any proposed physical public accessway
identified in the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan . The subject property is not located
within or near any designated public view corridors. Accordingly, the proposed project will not
impact any public views to or along the ocean or other scenic coastal areas as specified in the
Local Coastal Program land use plan .
Page 7 of 16
Page 12
0(1050
2. The proposed coastal development will not adversely affect environmentally
sensitive lands.
The project requires a Site Development Permit due to the presence of Environmentally Sensitive
Lands . The project proposes the demolition of an existing one-story, duplex and the construction
of a new three-story above basement single family residence. The City of San Diego conducted a
complete environmental review of this site. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared
for this project in accordance with State of Caiifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines, which preclude impact to these resources and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) would be implemented lo reduce potential historical resources (archaeology)
impacts to a level below significance. Mitigation for archaeology was required as the project is
located in an area with a high potential for subsurface archaeological resources. The project site
is a relatively fiat contains an existing structure, which is located approximately 8 feel above
mean sea level (AMSL) . The project site is not located within or adjacent to the Muli-Habital
Planning Area (MHPA) ofthe City's Multiple Species Conservation Program. The project site is
located within an existing urbanized area. The proposed project was found to not have a
significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed coastal development will not
adversely affect environmentally sensitive lands.
3. The proposed coastal development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal
Program iand use pian and complies with aii reguiacions of the ceriifieu Impieniciitatiun
Program.
City staffhas reviewed the proposed project for conformity with the Local Coastal Program and
has determined it is consistent with the recommended land use, design guidelines, and
development standards in effect for this site per the adopted Ocean Beach Precise Plan and Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan which identifies the site for multi-family residential use at 15-25
dwelling units per acre, the project as proposed would be constructed al 17 dwelling units per
acre.
The proposed development is to demolish an existing one-story, duplex and.constmct a new
three-story above basement garage . The new structure will be constructed within the 100 Year
Floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area), and has a Base Flood Elevalion of 9.6 feet mean sea
level. The restrictions on deveiopment within the floodplain require that the lowest floor,
including basement to be elevated at least 2 feet above the base flood elevation in accordance
with San Diego Mu^icipal·Code
,
(SDMC) section §143.0146(0X6), while the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) requires that the finished floor elevation be at one or more feet
above the base flood elevation (BFE). This project is requesting a Site Development Permit to
allow a deviation to permit development ofthe residential structure, to be at 7.1 feet below the
Base Flood Elevation.
Staff supports the proposed deviation due to the development limitations ofthe site and the
flood-proofing conditions that would be appiied to the permit to construct the lower level below
the Base Flood Elevation. The deviation request will not increase the overall structure height,
mass, and setbacks.
PageS of 16
Page 13
001051
The proposed development is located in an area designated as being between the first public road
and the Pacific Ocean, therefore views to the ocean shall be preserved . A visual corridor of not
less than the side yard setbacks will be preserved to protect views toward Dog Beach and the San
Diego River. In addition, this area is not designated as a view corridor or as a scenic resource.
Public views to the ocean from this location will be maintained and polentiaJ public views from
the first public roadway will not be impacted altered by the development. Accordingly, the
proposed project will not impact any public views to or along the ocean or other scenic coastal
areas . The project meets the intent ofthe guidelines for the Coastal Overlay and Coastal Height
Limitation Overlay zones, and the Ocean Beach Precise Plan and Local Coastal Program
Addendum. Therefore, the proposed coastal development would conform with the certified
Local Coastal Program land use plan and, with an approved deviation, comply with all
regulations ofthe certified Implementation Program.
4. For every Coastal Development Permit issued for any coastal development between
the nearest public road and the sea or the shoreline of any body of water located within the
Coastal Overlay Zone the coastal development is in conformity with the public access an d
public recreation policies of Chapter 3 ofthe Caiifomia Coastal Act.
The proposed developmenl is to demolish an existing one-story, duplex and construct a new
three-story above basement garage . The subject property is designated as being between the first .-
public road and the Pacific Ocean within the Coastal Overlay Zone .
The proposed project site backs up to and is adjacent to the Ocean Beach Park, designated in the
Local Coastal Program as a public park and recreational area. Public access to the park area is
available at the end of Voltaire Street and West Point Loma Boulevard . All development would
occur on private property; therefore, the proposed project will not encroach upon the existing
physical access way used by the public . Adequate off-street parking spaces will be provided on-
site, thereby, eliminating any impacts to public parking. The proposed coastal deveiopment will
conform to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 ofthe California Coastal
Act.
Site Development Permit - Section 126.0504(a)
I. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use pian;
The proposed deveiopment is to demolish an existing one-story, duplex and construct a new
three-story above basement garage . The project is within the 100-year floodplain, and is
therefore within the Environmentally Sensitive Lands, requiring a Site Development Pennit for
the deviation lo the Special Flood Hazard Area, per the City's Environmentally Sensitive Lands
Regulations (SDMC Section 143.0110 Table 143-01 A). The project is located in the appealable
Coastal Overlay Zone requiring a Coastal Development Permit. The proposed deveiopment is
located between the shoreline and the first public roadway; therefore views to the ocean shall be
preserved. This project is located in the RM-2-4 Zone . The RM-2-4 Zone permits a maximum
density of 1 dwelling unit for each 1,750 square feel of lot area. The project is in conformance
with the underlying zoning; and conforms to the required floor area ratio, parking and setbacks.
The proposed developmenl will adhere to the required yard area setbacks pursuant to the Land
Development Code. A Deed Restriction is a condition of approval to preserve a visual corridor
Page 9 of 16
Page 14
0G1052
of not less than the side yard setbacks, in accordance with the requirements of San Diego
Municipal Code Section 132.0403(b) . The building will be under the maximum 30-fool Coastal
Height Limit allowed by the zone .
The proposed project meets the intent, purpose, and goals ofthe underlying zone, and the Ocean
Beach Precise Plan and Local Coastal Program Addendum. Therefore, the proposed
development will not adversely affect the applicable iand use pian.
1. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
The proposed developmenl is to demolish an existing one-story, duplex and construct a new
1,749 square-foot, three-story single-family dwelling unit above an 819 square-foot basement
garage resulting in a 2,565 square-foot structure, hardscape, landscape on a 2,500 square-foot
site. The present units to be demolished may contain asbestos and lead-based paint and it could
potentially pose a risk to human heath and public safety. All demolition activities must be
conducted in accordance with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)
and the Caiifomia Code of Regulations Title 8 and 17 regarding the handling and disposal of
asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints . Therefore, special procedures during
demolition shall be followed . As a condition ofthe permit, Notice is to be provided to the Air
Pollution Control District prior to demoiition. Failure to meet these requirements would result in
the issuance of a Notice of Violation.
The permit as conditioned, shall fioodproof all structures subject to inundation . The
fioodproofed structures must be constructed to meet the requirements ofthe Federal Insurance
Administration's Technical Bulletin 3-93 . The permit conditions added, to flood-proof the
basement garage to the required height above grade, have been determined necessary to avoid
potentially adverse impacts upon the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the
area. All site drainage from the proposed development would be directed away from the adjacent
properties into existing public drainage system located on West Point Loma Boulevard via a
sump pump and sidewalk underlain.
Based on the above, human health and public safety impacts due to the demolition ofthe existing
structure on site would be below a level of significant, and a Notice to the SDAPCD is required
and would:be added as a permit condition. Therefore, the proposed development will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
3. The proposed development will comply with the regulations ofthe Land Development
Code;
The proposed development includes the demolition of an existing single-level, 1,250 square-foot
duplex residence and construction ofa new 1749 square-foot three-level single dwelling unit
with a subterranean parking garage . The projeel area is mapped within the 100 Year Floodplain
(Special Flood Hazard Area), and has a Base Flood Elevation of 9.6 feet mean sea level . The
restrictions on development within the floodplain require that the lowest floor, including
basement to be elevated at least 2 feet above the base fiood elevation in accordance with San
Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) section §143.0146(0(6), while the Federal Emergency
Page 10 of 16
Page 15
001053
Management Agency (FEMA) requires that the finished floor elevalion be at one or more feet
above the base flood elevation (BFE), which would effectively render the ground floor
uninhabitable for most properties in this area. In addition, the lot is sub-standard in that it is only
2,500 square feet in area where the minimum lot size allowed by the zone is 6,000 square feet.
Additionally, the RM-2-4 zone requires that 25 percent of FAR be utilized for parking, unless the
parking is provided underground. Therefore, the project is requesting a deviation to allow
development ofthe residential structure, to be at 7.1 feet below the Base Flood Elevation . All
structures subject to inundation shall be flood-proofed, and must be constructed to meet the
requirements ofthe Federal Insurance Administration's Technical Bulletin 3-93 .
An approved Site Development Permit would allow the deviation and would be consistent with
the Land Deveiopemnt Code. Thus, the proposed project meets the intent, purpose, and goals of
the underlying zone, and the Ocean Beach Precise Pian and Local Coastal Program Addendum,
and complies to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations ofthe Land Development
Code. Therefore, the proposed deveiopment will not adversely affect the applicable iand use
plan.
Supplemental Findings. Environmentallv Sensitive Landsfbl
1. The site is physically suitable for the design and siting ofthe proposed development
a s d the deveiopment will resuk is vzisimuTti disturbance to environnientally sensitive
lands;
The project site is immediately south ofthe San Diego River mouth outfall at the Pacific Ocean
and localed within the 100 year floodplain and is therefore considered environmentally sensitive
land, requiring a Site Development Permit for the deviation to the Special Flood Hazard Area.
However, the previous site grading and construction ofthe existing duplex have completely
disturbed the site. The property is relatively flat and does not include any sensitive topographical
or biological resources. The site is neither within nor adjacent to Multi-Habitat Planning Area
(MHPA) lands . A Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 2, 2006, has been prepared
for this project in accordance with State CEQA guidelines, and a Mitigation, Monitoring and
Reporting Program is required for Archaeological Resources to reduce any potential impacts to
below a level of significance.
A geotechnical analysis was prepared to address the liquefaction issue. This report concluded
that the site is considered suitable for the proposed development provided the conditions in the
Geotechnical Investigation Report are implemented. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for
the design and siting ofthe proposed development and the development will result in minimum
disturbance to environmentally sensitive lands .
2. The proposed development will minimize the alteration of land forms and will not
result in undue risk from geologic and erosional forces, flood hazards, or fire hazards;
The proposed project will be sited on a 2,500 square-foot, developed lot. Tlie majority ofthe site
is relatively flat at 8 feet above MSL across an approximately 25 foot x 100 foot lot. The
proposed development surrounded by existing residential deveiopment, within a seismically
active region of Caiifomia; and therefore, the potential exists for geologic hazards, such as
Page 11 of 16
Page 16
001054
earthquakes and ground failure. Proper engineering design ofthe new structures would minimize
potential for geologic impacts from regional hazards.
On site grading would occur for excavation of the building foundation and basement . The
subterranean garage, which would have a depth of 6 feet below existing grades, would be at least
two feet below the high groundwater table . However, the subject site is no greater danger from
flooding than the adjacent, already developed sites and the proposed design mitigates potential
ftood related damage to the principal residential structure by raising the required living space
floor area above the fiood line per FEMA requirements, and flood-proof all structures subject to
inundation in accordance with Technical Bulletin 3-93 ofthe Federal Insurance Administration.
Therefore, the proposed deveiopment will not result in undue risk from geologic and erosional
forces, flood hazards, or fire hazards.
3. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on
any adjacent environmentally sensitive lands;
The project site is within the 100 year floodplain and is therefore considered environmentally
sensitive land. However, the previous site grading and construction ofthe existing duplex have
completely disturbed the site. The property is relatively flat with an elevation of 8 feet above
mean sea level and does not include any sensitive topographical or biological resources. The site
is neither wilhin nor adjacent to Muiri-Habitai Planning Area (MHPA) lands . A Mitigated
Negative Declaration dated November 2, 2006, has been prepared for this project in accordance
with State CEQA guidelines, and a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program is required
for Archaeological Resources to reduce any potential impacts to beiow a level of significance.
Thus, with the implementation ofthe conditions in the Geotechnical Investigation the proposed
project should not adversely affect environmentally sensitive lands .
4. The proposed development will be consistent with the City of San Diego's Multiple
species Conservation Program (MSCP) and subarea plan;
The project proposes the demolition ofthe existing duplex and construction ofa three-level
single dwelling unit with a subterranean parking garage. The project site is south of, but not
adjacent to, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), Multiple Habitat Planning
Area (MHPA) ofthe San Diego River floodway. Therefore, the project does not need to show
consistency with Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan.
.5. The proposed development will not contribute to the erosion of public beaches or
adversely impact local shoreline sand supply; and
The subject property is located approximately 450 feet away from the edge ofthe public beach,
and is separated from the shoreline by a city paridng lot. All site drainage from the proposed
development would be directed away from the adjacent properties into existing public drainage
system localed on West Point Loma Boulevard via a sump pump and sidewalk underlain .
Therefore, the proposed development will not contribute to the erosion of public beaches or
adversely impact local shoreline sand supply.
Page 12 of 16
Page 17
001055
6. The nature an d extent of mitigation required as a condition ofthe permit is
reasonably related to, and calculated to alleviate, negative impacts created by (he proposed
development.
The projeel proposes the demolition ofthe existing duplex and construction ofa three-level
single dwelling unit with a subterranean parking garage. An environmental analysis was
perfonned and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 51076 was prepared, which would
mitigate potentially significant archaeological resource impacts to below a level of significance.
The MND also discusses the location ofthe project being within the 100-year floodplain ofthe
San Diego River according to the Federal Emergency Managemenl Agency (FEMA) map. The
permit and MMRP prepared for this project include conditions, environmental mitigation
measures, and exhibits of approval relevant to achieving compliance with the applicable
regulations ofthe Municipal Code in effect for this project. These conditions have been
determined necessary to avoid potentially adverse impacts upon the health, safety and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the area. These conditions include requirements
pertaining to landscape standards, noise, lighting restric tions, public view, public right of way
improvements, flood-proofing the structure and raising the habitable space above flood line,
which provides evidence that the impact is not significant or is otherwise mitigated to below a
level of significance. Therefore, the nature and extent of mitigation required as a condition ofthe
permit is reasonably related to, and calculated to alleviate, negative impacts created by the
proposed development
Supplemental Findings, Environmentallv Sensitive Lands Deviations(c)
I. There are no feasible measures that can further minimize the potential adverse affects
on environmentally sensitive lands; and
The project area is mapped within the 100-year floodplain and the restrictions on developmenl
within the floodplain require that the first floor be 2 feet above the base flood elevation . The
sub-standard lol of 2,500 square feet is less than 42% ofthe minimum area required for a legal
lot in the RM-2-4 zone . These conditions and the fact that 25 percent ofthe 0.70 floor area ratio
(FAR) allowed by the zone is required to be used for parking, unless the parking is provided
underground, led the applicant to provide an underground garage that will be flood proofed
according to the requirements ofthe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order
to avoid having part ofthe ground floor level devoted to parking, which, in turn, would have
drastically reduced habitable space. The project proposal includes a modest increase in square
footage from 1,250 to 1,749 and to allow for development to be below the base flood elevalion.
Raising the finished floor elevation two feet above the BFE will not change the situation with
regard to any adverse effects. The property is protected by a levee from floods that may come
from the San Diego River. Any flooding would be of a low velocity and shallow and more likely
from run off from the hill above Ocean Beach than from the river or the ocean.
Building the structure below the BFE or two-feet above, will nol have implications to
environmentally sensitive lands, therefore there are no feasible measures that can further
minimize the potential adverse affects on environmentally sensitive lands .
Page 13 of 16
Page 18
001056
2. The proposed deviation is the minimum necessary.to afford relief from special
circumstances or conditions ofthe land, not ofthe applicant's making
The proposed development is taking place within the 100 Year Floodplain (Special Flood
Hazard Area), and the proposed new development is not in conformance with SDMC section
§ 143.0146(C)(6) which requires a development within a Special Flood Hazara'Area to have the
lowest floor, including basement, elevated at least 2 feet above the base flood elevation . The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that the finished floor elevation be al
one or more feet above the base flood elevation (BFE). This project is requesting a deviation to
allow development ofthe residential structure, to be at 7.1 feel below the Base Flood Elevation.
The subterranean garage, which would have a depth of 6 feel below existing grades, would be at
least two feel below the high groundwater table. However, all structures subject to inundation
shall be flood-proofed and meet the requirements ofthe Federal Insurance Administration's
Technical Bulletin 3-93 . The proposed basement parking area is the mimmum necessary to
exclude the paridng from the FAR, to allow for a reasonably sized residence on this sub-standard
lot In addition, the applicant states that there is hydrological evidence that flooding if any that
may occur in a 100 years flood event would be minor and easily handled by the proposed flood
proofing . The property is protected by a levee from floods that may come from the San Diego
River, Flooding in this area would be due to lack of capacity of the storm water system .
Flooding in a 100 year event in this area is very low velocity (ponding only) does not come from
the river or the beach as is commonly believed but from run off from the streets on the hiii above
ocean beach. Additionally, there is evidence that recent and significant storm water repairs in
this area should significantly reduce the already low risk. The proposed BFE will not have an
adverse effect on environmentally sensitive lands and provide the minimum necessary to afford
relief from special circumstances or conditions ofthe land.
Supplemental Findings, Environmentally Sensitive Lands Deviation from Federal
Emergency Management Agencv Regulationsfd)
1. The City engineer has determined that the proposed development, within any
designated floodway will not result in an increase flood levels during the base flood
discharge;
The proposed development including the flood-proofed basement garage is taking place within
the 100 Year Fioodpiain and not within the Floodway. Therefore, this finding is not applicable
to the subject project.
2. The City engineer has determined that the deviation would not result in additional
threats to the public safety, extraordinary public expense, or create a public nuisance.
The proposed development is to demolish an existing one-story, duplex and construct a new
1,749 square-foot, three-story single-family dwelling unit above an 819 square-foot basement
garage. The permii as conditioned, shall flood-proof all structures subject to inundation. The
owner shall bear all costs of flood-proofing, and there will be no expense lo the city.
Pase 14 of 16
Page 19
001057
The City Engineer has determined that the deviation to allow the structure io be built under the
BFE rather than 2'-0'
,
above as required by the Land Development Code will not cause an
increase in the flood height . The elevation requirement ofthe Land Development Code is for the
protection ofthe structures and its contents. Lessening that requirement does not result in
additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, or create a public nuisance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based on the findings hereinbefore adopled by the Planning
Commission, Coastal Development Permit No. 147134 and Site Development Permit No.
389939 are hereby GRANTED by the Planning Commission to the referenced Owner/Permittee,
in the form, exhibits, terms and conditions as set forth in Permii No. 147134/389939, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
LAILA ISKANDAR
Development Project Manager
Developmenl Services
Adopted on: February 8, 2007
Job Order No. 42-3454
cc: Legislative Recorder, Planning Department
Page 15 of 1 6
Page 20
001059
ATTACHMENT
#3
Applicant Memo of Law
Page 21
001061
Procopio'
Vp'-iio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch UP
·
Evelyn F. Heidelberg
Direci Dial: (619)525-3804
E-mail: [email protected]
Personal Fax; (619) 398-0134
August 14,2007
BV HAND
Honorable Members ofthe City Council
City of San Diego -
City Administration Building ,
202 "C" Street
San Diego, CA 92101-3862
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision io Approve Site Development Permit
and Coastal Developmenl Permit for the Stebbins Residence - Project No. 51076
(September 4, 2007)
Dear City Council Members:
On behalf of our client, appellee Mr. David Stebbins. we submit a response lo the City
Attorney's Memorandum MS 59, dated June 13, 2007 ("City Attorney's Memo"), in which the
City Attorney asserts that certain findings required by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency ("FEMA") need to be made in order to approve a Site Development Permit ("SDP") for
the referenced project ("Project"). (A copy ofthe City Attorney's Memo is attached for your
reference as Exh. A.) As set forth below, the City Attorney's opinion is incorrect as a matter of
law.
Executive Summary
Among the 17 findings made by the Planning Commission to support issuance of an SDP
and a Coastal Development Permit are four required specifically to support a deviation for the
Project from the Land Development Code's Supplemental Requirements for Special Flood
Hazard Areas. The project requires a deviation from a Supplemental Requirement that the first
floor of a structure have the lowest floor (including basements) elevated at least two feet above
the base flood elevation. Due io an extremely small lot and restrictive FAR requirements, the
only feasible design that meets the zoning requirements necessitates placing a water-proofed
garage below-grade.
530 B Street. State 2100· SanDieso. CA92101-4469 · 1613.238.1900 F.619.235.0398
Hartii Com? face ·-917 Paln^. r Oaks Way SLI 300 · Cari^sn CA 5?00B-»=V; -T 750.93l.97DC f. 760.931. USs
www.procopio.cotn ffi BE S' & K '# .s
:
- s «''& '^ & % - u-.-. £ ^ *- .- '& jv··*. :-:·»' >· :
114708.OOO0O2/732693 0 i
Page 22
0 0 1 0 6 2
#Procopio-
Honorable Members ofthe City Council
August 14,2007
Page 2
The City Attorney has taken the position that the Land Development Code "on its fact
[sic] incorporates by reference the [addiiional] requirements of 44 CFR Section 60.6(3)" and that
as a consequence two additional findings need to be made to support the deviation. But nowhere
in the Land Development Code ("LDC") are such requirements expressly incorporated by
reference. The City Attorney's argument is based on an interpretation ofthe LDC that violates a
fundamental principle of statutory construction. The City Attorney argues that a provision in one
section ofthe LDC specifying development regulations for special flood hazard areas (in which
it is staled that "The following developmenl regulations and all other applicable requirements
and regulations of FEMA apply . . . P [SDMC § 143.0145(d)]) carries over and is somehow
incorporated inlo an entirely different section ofthe LDC which specifies supplemental findings
that must be made for a deviation from those developmenl regulations. SDMC §§
143.0150(a)&(b) (requiring that findings required by SDMC §§ 126.0504(c)&(d) be made). The
City Anorney's argument violates the "settled rule of statutory construction'that a special statute
dealing wilh a panicular subject controls and takes priority over a general statute." Pinewood
Investors v. City ofOxnord, 133 Cal. App. 3d 1030, 1041 (1982). As applied lo the facts here,
this principle means that if City Council in adopting provisions requiring that specific findings be
made to support deviations from flood regulations had intended to incorporate FEMA
regulations, it would have said so in the LDC provisions governing deviations not in the LDC
provisions governing the regulations from which deviations may be necessary.
The City Attorney's argument is also premised on the incorrect assertion that Council
Policy 600-14, which calls for the two additional findings to be made, somehow "trumps" the
LDC regulations. Such a position is at odds with the stated purpose ofthe LDC. the Council's
Policy No. 000-01, and fundamental principles of due process.
Regulatory Background
The Project site is considered "environmentally sensitive" solely because il is located
within the 100-year floodplain.
1
The Pianning Commission's findings acknowledge that any-
flooding in this.area:'wouid be dlie to lack of capacity ofthe storm water system; . "Flooding in a
100 year event in this area is very low velocity (ponding'only) [and] ddes
;
ndt come from the
[San Diego] [R]iver or the beach as is commonly believed but from runoff from the streets on the
hill above [Ojcean [B]each. Additionally, there is evidence that recent and significant storm
water repairs in this area should significantly reduce the already low risk." (Planning
Commission Resolution, at page 14).
The Project required an SDP solely because one ofthe Supplemental Regulations for
Special Fiood Hazard Areas requires lhat a structure have the lowest floor (including basements)
1
As set forth in the staff report to Council dated May 16, 2007, "[t]he site does not include any sensitive
topographical or biological resources and is neither within or adjacent to Multi-Habitat Pianning Area (MPHA)
lands." Report No. 07-091, at page 4.
I4708.OO0002/732693.OI
Page 23
001063 ^Procopio'
Honorable Members ofthe Cily Council
August 14,2007
Page 3
elevated at least two feet above the base flood elevation. San Diego Municipal Code ("SDMC")
§ 143.0]46(c)C6). The Project requires a deviation from that requirement because water-proofed
parking is partially below grade, with the living space above. This design was necessary because
the lot is very small (only 2,500 square feet), and the applicable zoning (RM-2-4) allows a Floor
Area Ratio ("FAR") of only 0.7 and requires that 25 percent ofthe permitted FAR be used for
parking unless parking is provided underground, if part ofthe first floor (i.e. , above two feet
above base flood elevation) had to be devoted to parking, the habitable space ofthe unit would
be very small . These regulatory constraints probably explain why the existing modest and
dilapidated structures along this block; built in the mid-1950s, have not been redeveloped. As il
is, wilh the water-proofed parking below-grade, the Projeel is still quite small by. contemporary
standards, consisting of livable space of only 1,749 square feel plus the 816 square foot garage.
Pursuant to the LDC, a deviation from Section 143.0146(cX6) requires that findings be
made pursuant to Section 126.0504(c) and (d). (See SDMC § 143.0150(a) & (b).) Such findings
are in addition to the findings required for all SDPs, for SDPs for projects located on
Environmentally Sensitive Lands and for Coastal Developmenl Permits ("CDPs") pursuant to
Sections 126.050(a), 126.050Cb) and 126.0708, respecliveiy. To satisfy these various authorities,
seventeen (17) findings need to be made, and the Planning Commission has made each of these
required findings, and each finding is supponed by substantial evidence.
The City Attorney's Position Is Incorrect As a Matter of Law in Arguing that the FEMA
Standards for Deviations Are Incorporated Into the Land Development Code an d that in
Making the Required Findings, the FEMA Standards Must Be Addressed
The City Attorney's Memo does not dispute that the referenced 17 findings musl be
made.
2
Rather, the Cily Attorney's Memo asserts that "the LDC on'its fact [sic] incorporates by
reference the requirements of 44 CFR Section 60.6(a)." Cily Attorney's Memo, al page 6. The
City Attorney is incorrect: the Land Deveiopment Code does nol. on its face, incorporate by
reference the referenced FEMA standards, which identify certain procedures for communities to
follow when.granting a variance.
At issue is an obscure provision appearing not in the main body of FEMA regulations,
but rather in one of several voluminous appendices to the National Flood Insurance Program
regulations. 44 CFR Section 60.6.(a) is found in Appendix E. a copy of which is attached as
Exh. B. Specifically, the import ofthe City Attorney's Memo is thai in addition lo the 17
detailed findings made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission was obligated
also to make one "showing" and one "determination": lhat the variance was approved upon a
showing of good and sufficient cause, and that failure to grant the deviation would result in
2
The City Attorney's Memo addresses only the 14 findings that must be made for an SDP, and does not
address the three additional findings that must be made for a CDP pursuant lo Section 126.0708.
14708.000002/732693.01
Page 24
001064
rfpProcopio'
Honorable Members ofthe City Council
August 14,2007
Page 4
exceptional hardship to the applicant. See 44 CFR § 60.6(a)(3)(i)&(ii), at Exh. B, page E-23.
3
The Planning Commission's 17 findings themselves demonstrate that there was "good and
sufficient cause" for granting the deviation, although those precise words do not appear per se in
the 17 findings . Sufficienl evidence lo support a determination that failure lo grant the deviation
would result in exceptional hardship is before you in consideration of this appeal, but it is Mr.
Stebbins' contention lhat the City Attorney's position that the Planning Commission's findings
are insufficient is incorrect as a matter of law.
To suppon its position, the Cily Attorney's Office cites Section 143.0345(d). Section
143,0145 sets forth "Developmenl Regulations for Special Flood Hazard Areas," which sets
forth the technical requirements applicable to developments proposed for special flood hazard
areas as mapped by FEMA. Subsection (d), on which the City Altomey relies, slates "[l]he
following development regulations and all other applicable requirements and regulations of
FEMA, apply to all development proposing to encroach into a Special Flood Hazard Area,
including both the floodway and flood fringe areas or that does not qualify for an exemption
pursuant to Section 143.0110(c). . . " (emphasis added).
But an entirely separate section ofthe LDC, Section 143.0150, provides for standards for
granting deviations from Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations: as referenced above,
Sections 143.0150(a) and (b) set forth required findings that the Planning Commission musl
make for deviations from the Environmentally Sensitive Land regulations generally, and from
the Supplemental Regulations for Special Flood Areas in Section 143.0146, respectively.
Neither Sections 143.0150(a) or (b) reference FEMA standards in any manner, let alone "on their
fac[e]."
The Cily Attomey''s argument - that the general statement in a section defining
applicable regulations that "ail other applicable requirements and regulations of FEMA apply" is
incorporated by reference into an entirely different section that specifically identifies standards
for granting deviations from those regulations particular FEMA regulations - defies logic,
principles of statutory construction, and constitutional rights to due process. As a matter of logic
and interpreiation of regulations", "[i]t is asettled rule of statutory construction that a special
statute dealing with a particular subject controls and lakes priority over a general statute."
Pinewood Investors v. City of Oxnard, 133 Cal. App. 3d 1030, 1041 (1982) . Applied to the
regulations at issue, this principle means that the provision in ihe general regulation (stating that
"ail other applicable requirements and regulations of FEMA apply" (Section 143.0110(c)) does
not carry over or apply to the specific regulations establishing the criteria and findings for
deviations from the Supplemental Regulations for Special Flood Areas in Section 143.0150(b) .
Moreover, thesection setting forth the findings that musl be made pursuant to Section
143.0150(b) is denominated "Supplemental Findings - Environmentally Sensitive Lands
^ AN ofthe other standards of 44 CFR § 60.6(a) are met by the !7 findings made by the Planning
Commission.
14708.000002/732693.01
Page 25
001065 tfpProcopicr
Honorable Members ofthe City Council
August 14,2007
Page 5
Deviation from Federal Emergency Managemenl Agency Regulations." SDMC § 126.0504(d).
If City Council had intended to incorporate the specific FEMA standards for granting variances
appearing at 44 CFR § 60.6(a), surely it would have so specified in Section 126.0504(d).
In addition, the Cily Attorney's argument - that "all other applicable requirements and
regulations of FEMA apply" in Section 143.0110(c) means that in determining whether
deviations may be granted pursuant to Sections 126.0504(d) and 143.0150(b)-would not pass
constitutional muster because it is void for vagueness. See, e.g.. DJ . Curtin, Jr. and C.T. Talbert,
Cunin's Caiifomia Land Use and Planning Law (24
th
ed. 2004), al 45 ("A land use ordinance,
including a zoning ordinance, cannot be so vague or uncertain that a person of common
intelligence and understanding musl guess as to its meaning."). Whal are the "other applicable
requirements and regulations of FEMA"? FEMA's regulations are voluminous and il is not al all
clear to the regulated public which of FEMA's regulations are applicable. Surely the regulated
public cannot be expected to comb through not only the main FEMA regulations, but all ofthe
various appendices lo the National Flood Insurance Program and guess as to which of those
regulations may be "applicable."
The City Attorney's Office Is Incorrect in Asserting that Council Policy 600-14
l
*Trumps*' the
Land Development Code Requirements
In addition to incorrectly asserting lhat "the LDC on ils fact [sic] incorporates by
reference the requirements of 44 CFR Section 60.6(a)[,]" the City Attorney argues thai Council
Policy 600-14, which incorporates the two provisions that the City Attorney claims are absent
from the Planning Commission's findings (a showing of good and sufficient cause for the
deviation and a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in sufficient hardship
to the applicanl) applies lo add substantive requirements lo the Planning Commission's necessary
findings in issuing deviations from FEMA Regulations pursuant to Section 126.0507(d). Here,
too, the City Attorney's Memo is wrong .
The City Attorney correctly.notes thai "[ajfter the Land Developmenl Code [LDC] was
streamlined and amended in January 2000 . reference to Council Policy 600-14 was removed
from the Municipal Code." City Attorney's Memo, at page 5. Yet the City Attorney asserts that
despite the removal of all references lo Policy 600-14, it nevertheless applies to the Planning
Commission's approval of deviations pursuant to Sections 126.0504(d) and 143.0150(b) . But by
contrast, many provisions ofthe LDC reference Council Resolutions that are applicable lo
proposed development projects. See. e.g., Editor's Note following SDMC § 111.1006.
4
Even
The Editor's Note following SDMC Section 111.0106 states as foiiows:
The Land Developmenl Manual includes:
Coastal Bluffs and Beaches Guidelines
Biology Guidelines
Historical Resources Guidelines
Submittal Requirements for Deviations within the Coastal Overlay Zone
114708.000002/732693.0!
Page 26
0 0 1 0 6 6
r Procopio-
Honorable Members ofthe Cily Council
August 14.2007
Page 6
though Council Policies, such as Policy 600-14, are adopled by resolution, neither Sections
326.0504(d) nor 143.0150(b) reference any ofthe Resolutions by which Policy 600-14 was
adopted or amended . Accordingly, there is nothing in the LDC to suggest that anything outside
the LDC applies to regulate the findings lhat need lo be made to support a deviation from the
Supplemental Regulations for Special Flood Areas pursuant to Sections 143.0150(b) and
126.0504(d).
The City Attorney's position flies'in the face ofthe stated purposes ofthe LDC, as well
as the regulated public 's right lo know what regulations apply lo their proposed projects.
Specifically, the "Purpose ofthe Land Developmenl Code" is as follows: "The Land
Developmenl Code sets forth the procedures used in the application of land use regulations, the
types of review .of development, and the regulations that apply lo the use and deveiopment of ·
land in the City of San Diego . The intent of these procedures and regulations'is lo facilitate fair
and effective decision-making and to encourage public participation!" SDMC § 311.0102.
"Fair" decision-making cannot be accomplished if the applicable rules are not specified for the
benefit ofthe regulated public . Because by ils terms the LDC sets forth the procedures, types of
review and applicable regulations, if lhc Council intended the two FEMA criteria lo apply to
deviations from the Supplemental Regulations for Special Flood Areas, it presumably would
have included such criteria in the LDC. Here, however, as stated above, there is nothing in the
LDC to suggest that anything outside the LDC applies lo regulate the findings lhat need to be
made lo support a deviation from the Supplemental Regulations for Special Flood Areas
pursuant to Sections 343.0150(b) and 126.0504(d).
Moreover, the Council's Policy on its Policies (Policy No. 000-01) stales "Regulatory
policies established by the City Council usually are adopted by ordinance and included in the
Municipal Code . However, other policies also are established which by their nature do not
require adoption by ordinance." (A copy of Policy No. 000-01 is attached as Exh. C.) Itis
submitted lhat the interests of fundamental fairness and due process require that all Council
policies imposing land development regulations be adopted by ordinance, or. in the words of
Policy No. 000-01 and consistent with .the stated purpose ofthe LDC, that by their nature,
policies regulating the use of land be adopted by ordinance as part ofthe LDC, or at minimum be
See RR-292248 for the Coastal Bluffs and Beaches Guidelines of the Land
Developmenl Code; RR-292249 for the Biology Guidelines of the Land
Development Code; RR-292250 for the Historical Resources Guidelines ofthe
Land Developmenl Code; RR-292251 for the Submittal Requirements for
Deviations within the Coastal Overlay Zone ofthe Land Developmenl Code..
Thus, the Land Development Code incorporates by reference those applicable regulations and guidelines that do not
appear in the Land Developmenl Code but which have been adopted by Council by resolution.
114708-000002/732693.01
Page 27
ffioe? ,
Honorable Members ofthe City Council
August 14, 2007,_
Page 7
T§lProcopio'
incorporated in the LDC by specific reference to the resolutions by which such policies were,
adopted by Council.
Foral! ofthe above-stated reasons, we submit that the City Attorney's Memo is incorrect
as a matter of law and that the Council may, consistent with the LDC and all other applicable
regulations, reject the appeal and affirm the findings and decisions ofthe Planning Commission.
Very truly yours.*
fv- · o
Evelyn-F.!Heidelberg, of
Procopiix Cory, Hargreaves &
Savitch LLP
EFH/hal
cc: Hon. Mayor Jerry Sanders
Mr. Jim Waring
Michael Aguirre . Esq.
114708.000002/732693.01
Page 28
011069
ycrabi
t EXHIBIT A
Page 29
001071
Office of
The City Attorney
City of San Diego
MEMORANDUM
MS 59
(619) 533-5800
DATE: June 13,2007
TO : Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: City Ailomey
SUBJECT: In Relation to the Appeal ofthe Planning Commission's Decision to Approve lhc
Issuance of a Site Development Permit for the Stebbins Residence, Project
No. 51076
TNTRODLICTION
On March 1, 2007, the Pianning Commission approved a Coastal Developmenl Permii [CDP]
and Site Development. Permii [SDP], cenified Ihe Mitigated Negative Declaration [MNDl and
adopled a Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program [MMRP] for ihe Stebbins Residence—
a project involving the demolition of an existing single-story duplex and the construction of a
1,749 square-foot ihree-story single-family residence on a 2.500 square-foot lot. A Site
Developmenl Permii is needed because ihe project includes a request to deviate from the
applicable Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Regulations to allow a portion ofthe new
structure to be located below ihe base flood elevation for below grade parking (subterranean iwo-
car garage wilh storage area). The property is located within a 100 year floodplain and is within
a Special Flood Hazard Area fSFHA]. See San Diego Municipal Code fSDMCl
sections 143.0110 Table 143-01 A. 126.0504(a)(b)(c) & (d) and 143:0150(a) & (b); Staff Report
to Planning Commission, Repon No. PC-07-010 (January 30. 2007). '
On or about March 14, 2007, the determination of the Planning Commission was appealed to
City Council. A hearing is currently scheduled for June 19. 2007 . ai which lime the City Council
will be asked to decide whether to grant or deny the appeal. Pursuant to San Diego Municipal
Code section 112.0508(c), grounds for appeal of this Process Four Decision may include:
1. Factual Error. The statements or evidence relied upon by the
decision maker when approving, conditionally approving, or
denying a permit, map, or olher matter were inaccurate;
2. New Injormation. New information is available to the appiicanl or
the interested person lhat was not available Ihrough that person's
reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision;
Page 30
0ul072
Honorable Mayor
and City Councilmembers
June 13,2007
Page 2
3. Findings Noi Supported. The decision maker's slated findings to
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit, map, or olher
matter are not supponed by the information provided to the
decision maker;
4. Conflicts. The decision io approve, conditionally approve, or deny
ihe permit, map, or other matter is in conflic t with a land use plan,
a Cily Council policy, or the Municipal Code; or
5. Citywide Significance. The mailer being appealed is of citywide
significance.
On appeal of the Mitigated Negative Dectaraiion, the City Council, per Section 112.0520(d),
shall, by majority vote:
1. Deny the appeal, uphold the environmental determination and
adopi the CEQA findings ofthe previous decision-maker, where
appropriate; or
2. Gram the appeal and make a superceding environmental
determination or CEQA findings;' or
3. Gram the appeal, sel aside the environmental determination, and
remand the matter io the previous decision-maker, in accordance
with section 1 12.0520(0. to reconsider the environmental
determination that incorporates any direction or instruction the
City Council deems appropriaie.
One ofthe issues on appeal is whether the Federal Emergency Managemenl Administration
[FEMA] Regulations. Section 60,6(a) of Title 44 ofthe Code of Regulations [44 CFR
Section 60.6(a)j (and as expressly referenced in Council Policy 600-14). apply lo this project;
and if so, whether these standards have been complied with. See Repon To City Council,
May 16, 2007, Report No. 07-091. In determining whether io approve the Site Development
Permit for this project, the Planning Commission did not qiake.the findings of 44 CFR
Section 60.6(a), which are identified in Council Policy 600.14.'
1
Although normally ihe Development Services Departmem IDSD) makes a written recommendation to City
Council on appeal. DSD is not required lo do so in every case. Section 112.0401(b) only requires a written
recommendation where feasible. Given the nature of this appea! and the determinations io be made based upon the
applicability of federal standards lo these particular facts Jc.g, cxcepiional hardship), it may not be feasible for DSD
to make a written recommendation al this time.
Page 31
001073
Honorable Mayor
and City Councilmembers
June 13,2007
Page 3
QUESTION PRESENTED
Do the findings of 44 CFR Section 69.6(a) (as incorporaled into Council Policy 600-14) need to
be made in order to approve an SDP for this project?
SHORT ANSWER
Yes . The findings of 44 CFR Section 69.6(a) (as incorporaled into Council Policy 600-14) need
io be made in order io approve an SDP for this project.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Under FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP] . the Cily of San Diego qualifies for
ihe sale of federally-subsidized Hood insurance if the City adopts and enforces its floodplain
management requirements lhat meet or exceed ihe minimum NFIP standards and requirements.
See 44 CFR Section 59.2{b} and Pan 60. The Cily'. s floodplain managemenl requirements must,
at a minimum, be designed io reduce or avoid future flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) or flood-
related erosion damages and must include effective enforcement provisions. See FEMA's
Fioodpiain Management Requirements A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Offic ials.
Page 5-4, " ' . -.
FEMA Regulations [44 CFR Section 60.6(a)] expressly identify the procedures'for communities
to follow when granting a variance, or in this case a deviation:
1. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any
designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels
during the base flood discharge would result;
2. Variances may be issued by a community for new construction and
substantia! improvements to he erected on a lot of one-half acre or
less in size contiguous lo and surrounded by lots with existing
structures constructed beiow the base flood level, in conformance
with the procedures of.paragraphs (a)C3), (4), (5) and (6) of this
section;
3. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon
i. a showing of good and suffic ienl cause.
ii. a determination that failure to grant the variance
would result in exceptional hardship to the
applicant, and
iii. a determination that the granting ofa variance will
not result in increased flood heighis, additional
threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
Page 32
001074
Honorable Mayor
and Cily Councilmembers
June 13,2007
Page 4
victimization of the public , or confiici with existing
local laws or ordinances;
4. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the
variance is the minimum necessary, considering the fiood hazard,
to afford relief;
5. A community shall notify the applicant in writing over the
signature ofa community offic ial thai
i. the issuance of a variance lo construct a structure
beiow the base flood ievel wiii result in increased
premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as
high as $25 for S i 00 of insurance coverage and
ii. such construction below the base flood level
increases risks to life and propeny. Such
notification shall be maintained wilh a record of all
variance actions as required in paragraph (a)(6) of
ihis section; and
6. A community shall (i) maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and (ii) report such
variances issued in its annual or biennial repon submitted to the
Administrator.
FEMA interprets these requirements to mean that, "(a] review board hearing a variance request
musl not only follow procedures given in the NFIP criteria, il must consider the NFIP criteria in
making ils decision." See FEMA's Floodplain Management Requirements A Study Guide and
Desk Reference for Local Officials, Page 7-45, In interpreting its own standards, FEMA has
provided guidance lo assist communities in determining whether the applicanl for a project has
demonstrated good and sufficient cause and hardship to justify a deviation:
Good an d sufficient cause. The applicant must show good and
suffic ient cause for a variance. Remember, the variance musl pertain
to the land, not its owners or residents. Here are some common
complaints about floodplain rules that are NOT good and sufficienl
cause for a variance:
· The value of the property will drop somewhat.
· Jt will be inconvenient for the propeny owner.
· The owner doesn't have enough money to comply.
· The propeny wiii look different from others in the neighborhood.
· The owner started building without a permii and now it will cost a
lot to bring the building into compliance.
Page 33
001075
Honorable Mayor
and City Councilmembers
June 13.2007
PageS
Hardship. The concept of unnecessary hardship is the cornerstone of
all variance standards . Strict adherence to ihis concept across the
country has limited the granting of variances.
The applicanl has the burden of providing unnecessary hardship.
Reasons for granting the variance musl be substantial; the proof musl
be compelling. The claimed hardship musl be exceptional, unusual
and peculiar to the property involved. Financial hardship,
inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps, personal
preferences or the disapproval of one's neighbors do not qualify as
exceptional hardships.
The local board must weigh the applicant's plea of hardship against
the purpose of ihe ordinance. Given a request for a variance-from
floodplain elevation requirements, the board must decide whether the
hardship the applicant claims outweighs the long-term risk to the
owners and occupants of the building would face, as well as the
community's need for strictly enforced regulations lhal proiect its
citizens from flood danger and damage.
When considering variances lo flood protection ordinances, local
boards continually face the difficult task of frequently having to deny
requests from applicants whose personal circumstances evoke
compassion, bui whose hardships are simply noi sufficienl tojusiify
deviation from community-wide flood damage prevention
requirements.
See FEMA's Floodplain Management Requirements A Study Guide and Desk Reference for
Local Officials. Pages 7-45 and 7-46.
2
Historically, the City of San Diego's approved floodplain management requirements were a
combination ofthe City Municipal Code provisions, found al Sections 62.0423, 91.8901 and
I01-.0462. and Council Policy 600-14. Both Section 62.0423 and 91.8901 incorporatedby
reference Council Policy 600-14. After the Land Developmenl Code [LDC] was streamlined and
amended in January 2000. reference to Council Policy 600-14 was removed from the Municipal
Code. Council Policy 600-14. both before and after the January 2000 LDC amendments.
3
The requirement for demonstrating good cause and exceptional hardship before granting a deviation dates to 1976.
The federal regulatory history of 44 CFR Pa n 60 is found in the Federal Register at 40 Fed. Reg. 13419. 13420
(March 26 . 1975) and 41 Fed/Reg , 46961. 46962. 46966 and 46979 {Oc tober 26 . 1976). 'The proposed regulations
did not intend to set absolute criteria for granting ofa variance, since il is (he communiry which, after appropriate
review, approves or disapproves a request. Rather, the regulations support FIA's authority lo review the grounds on
which variances were granted and io take ac lion (including ac lion m suspend) where a paitem of variance issuances
indicates an absence of unusual hardship or just and sufficient cause. For example, in the instance of a community
issuing a variance for a structure to bc erec ted on a iol exceeding onc-halfacrc. the final rule reflec ts FJA's position
that the degree of technic al jusiification required increases greatly and tliat extreme and undue hardship must be
shown." 4 1 Fed. Reg. at 46966,
Page 34
001076
Honorable Mayor
and City Councilmembers
June 13.2007
Page 6
identified the criteria for granting a variance consistent with FEMA Reeulations 44 CFR
Section 60.6fa). Although Council Policy 600-14 is no longer incorporated fay reference into the
LDC. this Policy still remains in effect and. thus. Cily Council is subject to its terms. The last
time Council Policy 600-14 was amended was in December 2000. In addition, Section
143.0145(d) ofthe LDC makes clear thai ·"...aii other applicable requircmenis and regulations of
FEMA apply to all developmenl proposing to encroach into a Special Flood Hazard Area,
including both the floodway and flood fringe areas . . ." Therefore, the LDC on its fact
incorporates by reference the requirements of 44 CFR Section 60.6(a).
Because a Special Flood Hazard Area is considered an environmentally sensitive lands fESL]
area, a Sile Development Permit is necessary per SDMC section 126.0504(a) and (b). The
normal findings for a Site Developmenl Permit for projects on ESLs are:
1. The proposed development will not adversely affect ihe applicable
land use plan;
2. The proposed developmenl wiii noi be detrimental io the public
health, safety, and welfare;
3. The proposed development will comply with the applicable
regulations of the Land Developmenl Code;
4. The site is physically suitable for the design and siting ofthe
proposed developmenl and the development will resuil in
minimum disturbance to environmenially sensitive lands;
5. The proposed developmenl will minimize ihe alteration of nalural
land forms and will not resuil in undue risk from geologic and
erosional forces, fiood hazards, or fire hazards;
6. The proposed developmenl will be siled and designed lo prevent
adverse impacts on any adjacent environmenially sensitive lands;
7. The proposed development will be consislenl with the City of San
Diego's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea
Plan;
8. The proposed developmenl will not contribute to the erosion of
public beaches or adversely impact local shoreline sand supply;
and
9. The nature and exient of mitigation required as a condition ofthe
permit is reasonably related to. and calculated to alleviate, negative
impacls created by the proposed development.
Page 35
001077
Honorable Mayor
and City Councilmembers
June 13,2007
Page 7
In addition to the above findings for a Site Developmenl Permit, any deviation from the
Environmentally Sensitive Land Regulations where ihe projeel is within a Special Flood Hazard
Area also requires the fotiowing supplemental findings be made, pursuant io SDMC
section 143.0150(a) & (b). 126.0504(c) & fd);
1. There are no feasible measures thai can further minimize the
potential adverse effects on environmentally sensitive lands;
2. The proposed deviation is the minimum necessary to afford relief
from special circumstances or conditions ofthe land, noi of the
applicant's making;
3. The Cily Engineer has deiermined that ihe proposed development,
within any designated floodway will not result in an increase in
flood levels during the base flood discharge; and,
4. The City Engineer has deiermined lhal the deviation would nol
result in additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
o
UnAn
..
u
~
r
-^eaie a "ublic nuisance
Therefore, in order to grant ihe deviation for this projeel under the Land Development Code, all
13 findings, as identified above, must be made, as supported by substantial evidence in the
record. One of the express requirements is that "the proposed development will comply with ihe
applicable regulations of ihe Land Development Code." In as much as the LDC incorporates by
reference the FEMA standards, it is clear that FEMA standards will also apply to this project.
This would include the provisions of 44 CFR Section 60.6(a). Council Policy 600-14 further
demonstrates ihe need to ensure Section 60.6(a) is complied with before a deviation is granted
since it expressly identifies this FEMA regulatory criteria.
CONCLUSION
Among the many issues the Cily Council musl consider in determining whether to grant or deny
the appeal, the City Council musl also decide whether substantia! evidence in the record supports
the findings for granting a Sile Development Permit, which includes the findings of 44 CFR
Seciion 60.6(a) ofthe FEMA Regulations (as incorporated by reference into the Land
Development Code and as expressly referenced in Council Policy 600-14).
MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney
By
Shirley R. Edwards
Chief Deputy City Attorney
SRErpev
MS-2007-7
Page 36
001079
U
EXHJBIT B
Page 37
vi
id- H-^" ·'*—*
fc
XPPENDIXE:
NFIP REGULATIONS
This Appendix contains the text of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the National Flood Insurance
Program: 44 CFR Parts 59, 60, 65, and 70 .
TITLE 44 -EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND ASSISTANCE
CHAPTER I-FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
PART 59 -GENERAL PROVISIONS - Table of
Contents
Subpart A-General
Sec.
59.1 Definitions.
59.2 Description of program .
59.3 Emergency program.
59.4 References.
Subpart B-Eligibility Requirements
Sec.
59.21 Purpose of subpart.
59.22 Prerequisites for the sale of flood insurance.
59.23 Priorities for the sale of flood insurance under
the regular program.
59.24 Suspension of community eiigibJIity.
Authority: 42 U.S.C . 4001 etseq.; Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978
Comp. , p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31,1979, 44 FR
19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp. , p. 376 .
Subpart A—General
§ 59.1 Definitions.
As used in this subchapter—
"Act" means the statutes authorizing the National
Flood Insurance Program that are incorporated in 42
U.S.C. 4001-4128.
"Actuarial raies"-see "risk premium rates".
"Administrator
77
means the Federal Insurance
Administrator.
"Agency" means the Federal Emergency
Managemenl Agency, Washington DC.
"Alluvial fan flooding" means flooding occurring on
the surface of an alluvial fan or similar landform
which originates al the apex and is characterized by
high-velocity flows; active processes of erosion,
sediment transport, and deposition; and.
unpredictable flow paths . "Apex" means a point on
an alluvial fan or similar landform below which the
flow path of the major stream that formed the fan
becomes unpredictable and alluvia! fan flooding can
occur.
"Applicant" means a community which indicates a
desire to participate in the Program.
"Appurtenant structure" means a structure which is
on the same parcel of property as the principal
structure lo be insured and the use of which is
incidental lo the use ofthe principal structure.
"Area of future-conditions flood hazard" means the
land area that would be inundated by the Ipercent-
annual-chance (100-year) flood based on future-
conditions hydrology.
"Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO,
AH, AR/AO, AR/AH, or VO zone on a community's
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)~with a 1 percent
or greater annual chance of flooding to an average
depth of I to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel
docs not exist, where the path of flooding is
unpredictable, and where velocity flow may be
evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or
sheet flow.
"Area of special flood-related erosion hazard" is the
iand within a community which is most likely lo be
subject to severe flood-related erosion losses. The
area may be designated as Zone E on the Flood
Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM). After the detailed
evaluation of the special flood-related erosion hazard
area in preparation for publication ofthe FIRM. Zone
E may be further refined.
NFIP Regulations
E-l
Page 38
001082
"Area of special flood hazard'Ms the land in the flood
plain within a community subject to a 1 percent or
greater chance of flooding in any given year. The
area may be designated as Zone A on the FHBM.
After detailed ralemaking has been completed in
preparation for publication ofthe flood insurance rate
map. Zone A usually is refined inlo Zones A, AO,
AH, Al-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/AI-30, AR/AE,
AR/AO, AR/AH, ARIA, VO, or VI-30. VE, or V.
For purposes of these regulations, the term "special
flood hazard area" is synonymous in meaning with
the phrase "area of special flood hazard" .
"Area of special mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) hazard" is
the land within a community most likely lo be subject
to severe mudslides (i.e. , mudflows). The area may
be designated as Zone M on the FHBM. After the
detailed evaluation of the special mudslide (i.e.,
mudflow) hazard area in preparation for publication
ofthe FIRM, Zone M may be further refined.
"Base flood" means the flood having a one percent
chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given
year.
"Basement**
1
means any area of the building havihp
"its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides .
"Breakaway wall" means a wall that is not pan ofthe
structural support of the building and is intended
through its design and construction to collapse under
specific lateral .loading forces, without causing
damage to the elevated portion of the building or
supporting foundation system.
"Building" - see structure.
"Chargeable rates" mean the rates established by the
Administrator pursuant to section 3 308 ofthe Act for
firsl layer limits of flood insurance on existing
structures.
"Chief Executive Officer of the community (CEO)'
1
means the offic ial of the community who is charged
with the authority to.implement and administer laws,
ordinances and regulations for that community.
"Coastal high hazard area" means an area of special
flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland
limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast
and any other area subject to high velocity wave
aclion from storms or seismic sources.
"Community" means any Stale or area or political
subdivision thereof, or any Indian tribe or authorized
tribal organization, or Alaska
Native village or authorized native organization,
which has authority to adopt and enforce flood plain
management regulations for the areas within its
jurisdiction.
"Conlents coverage" is the insurance on personal
property within an enclosed structure, including the
cost of debris removal, and the reasonable cost of
removal of contents to minimize damage. Personal
property may be household goods usual or incidental
lo residential occupancy, or merchandise, furniture,
fixtures, machinery, equipment and supplies usual to
other than residential occupancies.
"Criteria" means the comprehensive criteria for iand
management and use for flood-prone areas developed
under 42 U.S.C. 4102 for the purposes set forth in
part 60 of this subchapter.
"Critical feature" means an integral and readily
identifiable part ofa flood protection system, without
which the flood protection provided by the entire
system would be compromised.
'^Curvilinear Line" means the border on either a
FHBM or FIRM that delineates the special flood,
mudslide (i.e. . mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion
hazard areas and consists ofa curved or contour line
lhat foiiows the topography.
"Deductible" means the fixed amount or percentage
of any loss covered by insurance which is borne by
the insured prior to the insurer's liability.
"Developed area'
1
" means an area of a community lhat
is:
(a) A primarily urbanized, built-up area that is a
minimum of 20 contiguous acres, has basic urban
infrastructure, including roads, utilities,
communications, and public facifities, to sustain
industrial, residential, and commercial activities,
and
(1) Within which 75 percent or more ofthe parcels,
tracts, or lots contain commercial, industrial, or
residential structures or uses; or
(2) Is a single parcel, tract, or lot in which 75 percent
of the area contains existing commercial or industrial
structures or uses; or
(3) Is a subdivision developed at a density of at least
two residential structures per acre within which 75
percent or more ofthe lots contain existing residentia!
structures al the time the designation is adopted.
(b) Undeveloped parcels, tracts, or lots, the
combination of which is less than 20 acres and
NFIP Regulations
E-2
Page 39
001083
r
—- contiguous on at least 3 sides lo areas meeting the
criteria of paragraph (a) at the time the designation is
adopted .
(c) A subdivision that is a minimum of 20 contiguous
acres that has obtained all necessary govemmenl
approvals, provided that the actual "start of
construction" of structures has occurred on at least 10
percent of the lots or remaining lots of a subdivision
or 10 percent ofthe maximum building coverage or
remaining building coverage allowed for a single lot
subdivision at the lime the designation is adopled and
construction of structures is underway . Residential
subdivisions must meel the density criteria in
paragraph (aX3) .
"Development" means any man-made change to
improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining,
dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or
drilling operations or storage of equipment or
materials..
"Director" means the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
"Eligihle community or participating community"
means a community for which the Administrator has
authorized the sale of flood insurance under the
National Flood Insurance Program .
"Elevated building" means, for insurance purposes, a
nonbasement building which has its lowest elevated
floor raised above ground level by foundation walls,
shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns.
"Emergency Flood Insurance Program or emergency
program" means the Program as implemented on an
emergency basis in accordance wilh section 1336 of
the Act. It is intended as a program lo provide a first
layer amount of insurance on all insurable structures
before the effective date ofthe initial FIRM.
"Erosion" means the process of the gradual wearing
away of land masses. This peril is not per se covered
under the Program.
"Exception" means a waiver from the provisions of
part 60 of this subchapter directed to a community
which relieves it from the requirements of a rule,
regulation, order or other determination made or
issued pursuant to the
Act
"Existing construction" means for the purposes of
determining rates, structures for which the "start of
construction" commenced before the effective date of
the FIRM or before January 1, 1975, for FIRMs
effective before that dale .
i "Existing construction"' may also be referred to as
"existing slructures."
"Existing manufactured home park or
subdivision" means a manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for
servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes
are to be, affixed (including, at a minimum, the
installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and
either final site grading or the pouring of concrete
pads) is completed before the effective date of the
floodplain management regulations adopted by a
community.
"Existing structures" - see existing construction.
"Expansion to an existing manufactured home park
or subdivision" means the preparation of additional
sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the
lots on which the manufacturing homes are to be
affixed (including the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading or
the pouring of concrete pads) .
"Federal agency" means any department, agency,
corporation, or other entity or instrumentality of the
executive branch of the Federal Government, and
includes the Federal National Mortgage Association
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
"Federal instrumentality responsible for the
supervision, approval, regulation^ or insuring of
banks, savings and loan associations, or similar
institutions" means the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the
Currency, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, and
the National Credit Union Administration.
"Financial assistance" means any form of loan, grant,
guaranty, insurance, payment, rebate, subsidy,
disaster assistance loan or grant, or any other form of
direct or indirect Federal assistance, other than
general or special revenue sharing or formula grants
made lo States.
"Financial assistance for acquisition or construction
purposes" means any form of financial assistance
which is intended in whole or in part for the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, or
improvement of any publicly or privately owned
building or mobile home, and for any machinery,
equipment, fixtures, and furnishings contained or to
be contained therein, and shall include the purchase
or subsidization of mortgages or mortgage loans but
shall exclude assistance pursuant to the Disaster
Relief Act of 1974 other than assistance under such
Act in connection with a flood. It includes only
financial assistance insurable under the Standard
Flood Insurance Policy.
NFIP Regulations
E-3
Page 40
001084
"First-layer coverage" is the maximum amount of
structural and contents insurance coverage available
under the Emergency Program.
"Flood" or "Flooding" means;
(a) A general and temporary condition of partial or
complete inundation of normally dry land areas from;
(1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters .
(2) The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source.
(3) Mudslides (i.e. , mudflows) which are proximately
caused by flooding as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of
this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and
flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land
areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water
and deposited along the path ofthe current.
(b) The collapse or subsidence of land along the
shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of
erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents
of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or
suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a
natural body of water, accompanied by a severe
storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as
flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some
similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which
results in flooding as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of
this definition,
"Flood elevation determination" means a
determination by the Administrator of the water
surface elevations ofthe base flood, that is, the flood
level that has a one percent or greater chance of
occurrence in any given year .
"Flood elevalion study" means an examination,
evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if
appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations,
or an examination, evaluation and determination of
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion
hazards .
"Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM)" means an
official map of a community, issued by the
Administrator, where the boundaries of the
flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) related erosion areas
having special hazards have been designated as Zones
A, M, and/or E.
"Flood insurance" means the insurance coverage
provided under the Program.
"Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means an
official map of a community, on which the
Administrator has delineated both the special hazard
areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the
community.
"Flood Insurance Study" - see flood elevation study.
"Flood plain or flood-prone area" means any land
area susceptible to being inundated by water from
any source (see definition of "flooding").
"Flood plain management" means the operation of an
overall program of corrective and preventive
measures for reducing flood damage, including but
not iimited to emergency -preparedness plans, flood
control works and flood plain managemenl
regulations.
"Flood plain management regulations" means zoning
ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes,
health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such
as a fiood plain ordinance, grading ordinance and
erosion control ordinance) and other applications of
police power. The term describes such state or local
regulations, in any combination thereof, which
provide standards for the purpose of flood damage
prevention and reduction.
"Flood protection system" means those physical
structural works for which funds have been
authorized, appropriated, and expended and which
have been constructed specifically to modify flooding
in order to reduce the extent of the area within a
community subject to a "special flood hazard"" and
the extent ofthe depths of associated flooding. Such a
system typically includes hurricane tidal barriers,
dams, reservoirs, levees or dikes. These specialized
fiood modifying works are those constructed in
conformance with sound engineering standards.
"Flood proofing" means any combination of
structural and non-structural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate
flood damage to real estate or improved real property,
water and sanitary facilities, structures and their
contents.
"Fiood-related erosion" means the collapse or
subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other
body of water as a result of undermining caused by
waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated
cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually
high water level in a natural body of water,
accompanied by a severe storm, or by an
unantic ipated force of nature, such as a flash flood or
an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual
and unforeseeable event which results in flooding.
"Flood-related erosion area or flood-related erosion
prone area" means a iand area adjoining the shore of
a lake or other body of water, which due lo the
composition ofthe shoreline or bank and high water
levels or wind-driven currents, is likely to suffer
flood-related erosion damage.
"Flood-related erosion area management" means the
operation of an overall program of corrective and
NFIP Regulations
E-4
Page 41
001085
preventive measures for reducing flood-relaied
*·' erosion damage, including but not limited to
emergency preparedness plans, flood-related erosion
control works, and flood plain management
regulations.
"Floodway" - see regulatory floodway.
"Floodway encroachment lines" mean ihe lines
marking the limits of floodway s on Federal, State and
local flood plain maps .
"Freeboard" means a factor of safely usually
expressed in feet above a flood level for
purposes of flood plain management. "Freeboard'"
tends to compensate for the many unknown factors
that could contribute to flood heights greater than the
height calculated for a selected size fiood and
floodway. conditions, such as wave action, bridge
openings, and the hydrological effect of urbanization
ofthe watershed.
"Functionally dependent use" means a use which
cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is
localed or carried out in close proximity to waler. The
term includes only docking facilities, port facilities
that are necessary for the loading and unloading of
cargo or passengers, and ship buiiding and ship repair
facilities, but does not include long-term storage or
related manufacturing facilities.
"Future-conditions flood hazard area, .or future-
conditions fioodpiain"—see Area of future-conditions
flood hazard .
"Future-conditions hydrology" means the flood
discharges associated with projected land-use
conditions based on a community's zoning maps
and/or comprehensive land-use plans and without
consideration of projected future construction of
flood detention structures or projected future
hydraulic modifications within a stream or other
waterway, such as bridge and culvert construction,
fill, and excavation.
"General Counsel" means the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural
elevation ofthe ground surface prior to construction
next to the proposed walls of a structure.
"Historic Structure" means any structure that is:
(a) Listed individually in the National Register of
Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined
by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the
requirements for individual listing on the National
Register,
(b) Certified or preliminarily deiermined by the
'Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historical significance ofa registered historic distric t
or a distric t preiiminariiy determined by the Secretary
to qualify as a registered historic district;
(c) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic
places in states with historic preservation programs
which have been approved by the Secretary of the
interior; or
(d) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic
places in communities with historic preservation
programs lhat have been certified either
(1) By an approved state program as determined by
the Secretary ofthe Interior or
(2) Directly by the Secretary ofthe Interior in slates
without approved programs.
"Independent scientific body" means a non-Federal
technical or scientific organization involved in the
study of land use planning, flood plain management,
hydrology, geology, geography, or any other, related
field of study concerned with flooding.
"Insurance adjustment organization" means any
organization or person engaged in the business of
adjusting loss claims arising under the Standard
Flood Insurance Policy.
"insurance company or insurer" iticans any person or
organization authorized to engage in the insurance
business under the laws of any State.
"Levee" means a man-made structure, usually an
earthen embankment, designed and constructed in
accordance with sound engineering practices to
contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to
provide protection from temporary
flooding.
"Levee System" means a flood protection system
which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated
structures, such as closure and drainage devices,
which are constructed and operated in accordance
with sound engineering practices.
"Lowest Floor" means, the lowest floor ofthe lowest
enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or
flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of
vehicles, building access or storage in an area other
than a basement area is not considered a building's
lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built
so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable non-elevation design requirements of Sec.
60.3.
"Mangrove stand" means an assemblage of mangrove
trees which are mostly low trees noted for a copious
development of interlacing adventitious roots above
the ground and which contain one or more of the
fotiowing species: Black mangrove (Avicenma
Nitida); red mangrove (Rhizophora Mangle); white
NFIP Regulations
E-5
Page 42
001086
mangrove (Languncularia Racemosa); and
buttonwood (Conocarpus Erecta).
"Manufactured home'
7
means a structure,
transportable in one or more sections, which is built
on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with
or without a permanent foundation when attached to
the required utilities. The term "manufactured home""
does not include a "recreational vehicle".
"Manufactured home park or subdivision'" means a
parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into
two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale .
"Map" means the Fiood Hazard Boundary Map
(FHBM) or the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
for a community issued by the Agency.
"Mean sea level" means, for purposes ofthe National
Flood Insurance Program, the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to
which base flood elevations shown on a community's
Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced.
"Mudslide "(i.e., mudflow) describes a condition
where there is a river, flow or inundation of liquid
mud down a hillside usually as a result of a dual
condition of loss of brush cover, and the subsequent
accumulation of water on the ground preceded by a
period of unusually heavy or sustained rain. A
mudslide (i.e., mudflow) may occur as a distinct
phenomenon while a landslide is in progress, and will
be recognized as such by the Administrator oniy if
the mudflow, and not the landslide, is the proximate
cause of damage that occurs.
"Mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) area management'" means
the operation of an overall program of corrective and
preventive measures for reducing mudslide (i.e. ,
mudflow) damage, including but nol limited lo
emergency preparedness plans, mudslide conirol
works, and flood plain managemenl regulations.
"Mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) prone area" means an area
with land surfaces and slopes of unconsolidated
material where the history, geology and climate
indicate a potential for mudflow .
"New construction" means, for the purposes of
determining insurance rates, structures for which the
"start of construction" commenced on or after the
effective date of an initial FIRM or after December
31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures. For
floodplain managemenl purposes, new construction
means structures for which the start of construction
commenced on or after the effective date 'of a
floodplain management regulation adopted by a
community and includes any subsequent
improvements to such slructures.
"New manufactured home park or subdivision'
1
means a manufactured home park or subdivision for
which the construction of facilities for servicing the
lots on which the manufactured homes are to be
affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of
utilities, the construction of streets, and either final
sile grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is
completed on or after the effective date of fioodpiain
management regulations adopled by a communirv'.
"100-year flood" - see base flood.
"Participating community", also known as an eligible
community, means a community in which the
Administrator has authorized the sale of fiood
insurance.
"Person" includes any individual or group of
individuals, corporation, partnership, association, or
any other entity, including State and local
governments and agencies.
"Policy" means the Standard Flood Insurance Policy.
"Premium" means the total premium payable by the
insured for the coverage or coverages provided under
the policy. The calculation of the premium may be
based upon either chargeable rates or risk premium
rales, or a combination of both.
"Primary frontal dune" means a continuous or nearly
continuous mound or ridge of sand with relatively
steep seaward and landward slopes immediateiy
landward and adjacent to the beach and subject to
erosion and overtopping from high tides and waves
during major coastal storms. The inland limit ofthe
primary frontal dune occurs at the point where there
is a distinct change from a relatively steep slope lo a
relatively mild slope.
"Principally above ground" means that at least 51
percent ofthe actual cash value ofthe structure, less
land value, is above ground .
"Program" means the National Fiood Insurance
Program authorized by 42 U.S.C . 4001 through 4128 .
"Program deficiency" means a defect in a
community's flood plain management regulations or
administrative procedures that impairs effective
implementation of those flood plain managemenl
regulations or of the standards in Sec. 60.3, 60.4,
60.5, or 60.6 .
"Project cost" means the total financial cost ofa flood
protection system (including design, land acquisition,
construction, fees, overhead, and profits), unless the
Federal Insurance Administrator determines a given
" c o s r nol to be a part of such project cost.
"Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle which is:
(a) Built on a single chassis;
(b) 400 square feel or less when measured at the
NFIP Regulations
E-6
Page 43
.001087
largest horizontal projection;
(c) Designed lo be self-propelled or permanently
towable by a light duty truck; and
(d) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent
dwelling but as temporary living quarters for
recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
"Reference feature" is the receding edge of a bluff or
eroding frontal dune, or if such a feature is not
present, the normal high-water line or the seaward
line of permanent vegetation if a high-water line
cannot be identified .
"Regular Program" means the Program authorized by
the Act under which risk premium rates are required
for the first half of available coverage (also known as
"first layer" coverage) for all new construction and
substantial improvements started on or after the
effective date of the FIRM, or after December 31,
1974, for FIRM'S effective on or before that date . AM
buildings, the construction of which started before the
effective date of the FIRM, or before January 1,
1975, for FIRMs effective before that date, are
eligible for first layer coverage at either subsidized
rates or risk premium rates, whichever are lower.
Regardless of date of construction, risk premium
rates are always required for the second layer
coverage and such coverage is offered oniy after the
Administrator has completed a risk study for the
community.
"Regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river
or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood
without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation more than a designated height.
"Remedy a violation" means lo bring the structure or
other development into compliance with State or
local flood plain managemenl regulations, or, if this
is not possible, to reduce the impacts of ils
noncompliance. Ways that impacls may be reduced
include protecting the structure or other affected
development from fiood damages, implementing the
enforcement provisions ofthe ordinance or otherwise
deterring future similar violations, or reducing
Federal financial exposure with . regard lo the
structure or other development
"Risk premium rates" mean those rates established by
the Administrator pursuant to individual community
studies and investigations which are undertaken to
provide flood insurance in accordance with section
1307 ofthe Act and the accepted actuarial principles.
"Risk premium rates" include provisions for
operating costs and allowances.
"Riverine" means relating to, formed by, or
resembling a river (including tributaries), stream.
brook, etc.
"Sand dunes" mean natural ly occurring
accumulations of sand in ridges or mounds landward
ofthe beach.
"Scientifically incorrect". The methodology(ies)
and/or assumptions which have been utilized are
inappropriate for the physical processes being
evaluated or are otherwise erroneous.
"Second layer coverage" means an additional limit of
coverage equal to the amounts made available under
the Emergency Program, and made available under
the Regular Program.
"Servicing company" means a corporation.
partnership, association, or any olher organized entity
which contracts with the Federal Insurance
Administration to service insurance policies under the
National Flood Insurance Program for a particular
area.
"Sheet flow area"- see area of shallow flooding .
"60-year setback" means a distance equal to 60 times
the average annual long term recession rate at a site.
measured from the reference feature.
"Special flood hazard area"— see "area of special
flood hazard'".
"Special hazard area" means an area having special
flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow), or flood-related
erosion hazards, and shown on an FHBM or FIRM as
Zone A, AO, Al-30, AE, AR, AR/AI-30, ,AR/AE,
AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, A99, AH, VO. VI-30. VE,
V, M, or E.
"Standard Flood Insurance Policy" means the flood
insurance policy issued by the Federal insurance
Administrator, or an insurer pursuant to an
arrangement with the Administrator pursuant to
Federal statutes and regulations.
i
'Start of Construction" (for other than new
construction or substantial improvements under the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Pub . L. 97348)).
includes subslantial improvement, and means the date
the building permit was issued, provided the actual
start of construction, repair, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, addition placement, or other
improvement was within 180 days of the permit
date . The actual start means either the first placement
of permanent construction of a structure on a site.
such as the pouring of slab or footings, the
installation of piies, the construction of columns, or
any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the
placement ofa manufactured home on a foundation .
Permanent construction does not include land
preparation, .such as clearing, grading and filling;
NFIP Regulations
E-7
Page 44
001088
nor does it include the installation of streets and/or
walkways; nor does it include excavation for a
basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the
erection of temporary forms; nor does il include the
installation on the propeny of accessory buildings,
such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling
units or not part of the main structure. For a
substantia] improvement, the actual start of
construction means the first alteration of any wall,
ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building,
whether or not that alteration affects the external
dimensions ofthe building.
"State" means any Slate, the District of Columbia, the
territories and possessions of the United States, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Trust
Territory ofthe Pacific islands.
State coordinating agency means the agency of the
state government, or other office designated by the
Governor ofthe state or by state statute at the request
of the Administrator to assist in the implementation
ofthe National Flood Insurance Program in that state .
"Storm cellar" means a space below grade used to
accommodate occupants of the structure and
emergency supplies as a means of temporary shelter
against severe tornado or similar wind storm activity.
"Structure" means, for floodplain management
purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a
gas or liquid storage lank, that is principally above
ground, as well as a manufactured home. Structure,
for insurance purposes, means:
(1) A building with two or more outside rigid walls
and a fully secured roof, that is affixed to a
permanent site;
(2) A manufactured home f a manufactured home,"
also known as a mobile home, is a structure: built on
a permanent chassis, transported to its site in one or
more sections, and affixed to a permanent
foundation); or
(3) A travel trailer without wheels, buill on a chassis
and affixed to a permanent foundation, that is
regulated under the community's floodplain
management and buiiding ordinances or laws.
For the latter purpose, ""structure" does not mean a
recreational vehicle or a park trailer or other similar
vehicle, except as described in paragraph (3) of this
definition, or a gas or liquid storage tank.
"Subsidized rates" mean the rates established by the
Administrator involving in the aggregate a
subsidization by the Federal Government.
"Substantia! damage" means damage of any origin
sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring
the structure to ils before damaged condition would
equal or exceed 50 percent ofthe market value ofthe
structure before the damage occurred.
"Substantial improvement"' means any
reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals
or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the
structure before the "start of construction" of the
improvement. This term includes structures which
have incurred "substantial damage", regardless ofthe
actual repair work perfonned. The term does not,
however, include either;
(1) Any project for improvement of a structure to
correct existing violations of stale or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which have
been identified by the local code enforcement official
and which are the minimum necessary lo assure safe
living conditions or
(2) Any alteration of a "historic structure", provided
lhat the alteration will not preclude the structure's
continued designation as a "historic structure".
"30-year setback" means a distance equal to 30 times
the average annual long term recession rate at a sile,
measured from the reference feature.
"Technically incorrect". The methodology(ies)
utilized has been erroneously applied due to
mathematical or measurement error, changed
physical conditions, or insufficient quantity or quality
of input data .
"V Zone" - see "coastal high hazard area.'"
"Variance" means a grant of relief by a community
from the terms of a fiood plain management
regulation.
"Violation" means the failure o f a structure or other
development to be fully compliant with the
community's flood plain management regulations.. A
structure or other development without the elevation
certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of
compliance required in Sec. 60.3(bX5), (cX4),
(cXIO), (dX3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (eX5) is presumed lo
be in violation until such time as that documentation
is provided .
"Water surface elevation" means the height, in
relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD) of 1929, (or other datum, where
NFIP Regulations
E-8
Page 45
001089
specified) of floods of various magnitudes and
frequencies in the flood plains of coastal or riverine
areas . '
"Zone of imminent collapse" means an area subject
to erosion adjacent lo the shoreline of an ocean, bay,
or lake and within a distance equal to 10 feet plus 5
times die average annual long-term erosion rate for
the site, measured from the reference feature.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976]
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations
affecting Sec. 59.3, see the List of CFR Sections
Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section
ofthe printed volume and on GPO access.
§ S9.2 Description of program.
(a) The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 was
enacted by title XIII of the Housing and Urban
Developmenl Act of 1968 (Pub . L. 90448, August 1,
1968) to provide previously unavailable fiood
insurance protection to property owners in flood-
prone areas. Mudslide (as defined in Sec. 59.1)
protection was added to the Program by the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1969 (Pub . L. 91-
152, December 24, 1969). Flood-related erosion (as
defined in Sec. 59.1) protection was added to the
Program by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (Pub . L. 93-234, December 31, 1973). The
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the
purchase of flood insurance on and after March 2,
1974, as a condition of receiving any form of Federal
or federally-related financial assistance for
acquisition or construction purposes with respect to
insurable buildings and mobile homes within an
identified special flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow), or
flood-related erosion hazard area that is located
within any community participating in the Program .
The Act also requires that on and after Juiy 1, 1975,
or one year after a community has been formally
notified by the Administrator of its identification as
community containing one or more special flood,
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow), or flood-related erosion
hazard areas, no such Federal financial assistance,
shall be provided within such an area unless the
community in which the area is located is then
participating in die Program, subject to certain
exceptions- See FIA published Guidelines al Sec.
59.4(c).
(b) To qualify for the sale of federally-subsidized
flood insurance a community must adopt and submit
to the Administrator as part of its application, flood
plain management regulations, satisfying at a
minimum the criteria set forth at pan 60 of this
subchapter, designed to reduce or avoid future fiood,
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) or flood-related erosion
damages. These regulations must include effective
enforcement provisions.
(c) Minimum requirements for adequate flood plain
management regulations are set forth in Sec. 60.3 for
flood-prone areas, in Sec. 60.4 for mudslide (i.e. ,
mudflow) areas and in Sec. 60.5 for flood-related
erosion areas . Those applicable requirements and
standards are based on the amount of technical
information available to the community.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976, as amended at 43 FR
7140, Feb. 17, 1978. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177,
May 31, 1979, and amended at 48 FR 44552, Sept.
29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
§ 59. 3 Emergency program.
The 1968 Act required a risk study to be undertaken
for each community before il could become eligible
for the sale of fiood insurance. Since this requirement
resulted in a delay in providing insurance, the
Congress, in section 408 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1969 (Pub . L. 91-152,
December 24, 1969), established an Emergency
Flood Insurance Program as a new seciion 1336 of
the National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C. 4056) to
permii the early sale of insurance in flood-prone
communities. The emergency program does not affect
the requirement that a community musl adopt
adequate fiood plain management regulations
pursuant to part 60 of this subchapter but permits
insurance to be sold before a study is conducted to
determine risk premium rates for the community. The
program still requires upon the effective date of a
FIRM the charging of risk premium rates for all new
construction and substantia! improvements and for
higher limits of coverage for existing structures.
[43 FR 7140, Feb. 17, 1978 . Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31 , 1979, and amended at 48 FR 44543,
Sept. 29, 1983]
NFIP Regulations
E-9
Page 46
·· 00109 0
§ 59.4 References.
(a) The following are statutory references for the
National Flood Insurance Program, under which
these regulations are issued:
(1) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (title XIll
of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968), Pub. L. 90-448, approved August 1, 1968, 42
U.S.C. 4001 etseq.
(2) Housing and Urban Developmenl Act of 1969
(Pub. L. 91-152, approved December 24, 1969) .
(3) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (87 Stat.
980), Public Law 93-234, approved December 31,
1973.
(4) Section 816 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (87 Stat. 975), Public Law
93-383, approved August 22, 1974.
(5) Public Law 5-128 (effective October 12, 1977) .
(6) The above statutes are included in 42 U.S.C. 4001
etseq.
(b) The following are references relevant to the
National Flood insurance Program;
(1) Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management,
dated May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951, May 25, 1977)) .
(2) The Flood Control Act of I960 (Pub. L. 86645).
(3) Title II, section 314 of title III and section 406 of
title IV of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Pub. L.
93-288).
(4) Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub . L. 92583),
as amended Public Law 94-370.
(5) Water Resources Planning Act (Pub. L. 8990), as
amended Public Law 94-112 (October 16, 1975).
(6) Title I, National Environmental Policy Act (Pub.
L. 91-190).
(7) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Pub.
L. 89-578), and subsequent amendments thereto .
(8) Water Resources Council, Principals and
Standards for Planning, Water and Related Land
Resources (38 FR 24778-24869, September 10,
1973).
(9) Executive Order 11593 (Protection and
Enchancement of the Cultural Environment), dated
May 13, 1971 (36 FR 8921, May 15, 1971) .
(10) 89th Cong., 2nd Session, H.D. 465.
(11) Required land use element for comprehensive
planning assistance under section 701 of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended by the Housing
and Community Deveiopment Act of 1974 (24 CFR
600.72).
(12) Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands,
dated May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951, May 25, 1977)).
(13) Water Resources Council (Guidance for
Floodplain Management) (42 FR 52590, September
30, 1977) .
(14) Unified National Program for Floodplain
Management of the United Stales Water Resources
Council, July 1976.
(c) The following reference guidelines represent the
views of the Federal insurance Administration with
respect lo the mandatory purchase of flood insurance
under section 102 ofthe Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973: Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance
Guidelines (54 FR 29666-29695, July 13, 1989).
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976, as amended at 43 FR
7140, Feb. 17, 1978 . Redesignated at 44 FR 31177,
May 31, 1979, and amended at 57 FR 19540, May 7.
1992]
§ 59.2 Description of program.
(a) The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 was
enacted by title XIII of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448, August 1,
1968) to provide previously unavailable flood
insurance protection lo property owners in flood-
prone areas. Mudslide (as defined in Sec. 5V.])
protection was added to the Program by the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1969 (Pub . L. 91-
152, December 24, 1969). Flood-related erosion (as
defined in Sec. 59.1) protection was added to the
Program by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (Pub. L. 93-234, December 31 , 1973). The
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the
purchase of flood insurance on and after March 2,
1974, as a condition of receiving any form of Federal
or federally-related financial assistance for
acquisition or construction purposes widi respect lo
insurable buildings and mobile homes wilhin an
identified special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), or
flood-related erosion hazard area that is located
within any community participating in the Program.
The Act also requires that on and after July 1, 1975,
or one year after a community has been formally
notified by the Administrator of its identification as
community containing one or more special flood,
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow), or flood-related erosion
hazard areas, no such Federal financial assistance,
shall be provided within such an area unless the
community in which the area is located is then
participating in the Program, subject to certain
exceptions. See FIA published Guidelines at Sec.
59.4(c).
(b) To qualify for the sale of federally-subsidized
flood insurance a community must adopt and submit
NFIP Regulations
E-IO
Page 47
001091
to the Administrator as part of its application, flood
plain management regulations, satisfying at a
minimum the criteria set forth at part 60 of this
subchapter, designed to reduce or avoid future flood,
mudslide (i.e., mudflow) or flood-related erosion
damages. These regulations must include effective
enforcement provisions.
(c) Minimum requirements for adequate flood plain
management regulations are set forth in Sec. 60.3 for
flood-prone areas, in Sec. 60.4 for mudslide (i.e. ,
mudflow) areas and in Sec. 60.5 for flood-related
erosion areas. Those applicable requirements and
standards are based on the amount of technical
information available to the community.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 3 976, as amended at 43 FR
7140, Feb. 17, 1978 . Redesignated at 44 FR 31177,
May 31 , 1979, and amended at 48 FR 44552, Sept.
29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
§ 59.4 References.
(a) The following are statutory references for the
National Flood Insurance Program, under which
(1) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (title XIII
of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968), Pub. L. 90-448, approved August 1, 1968, 42
U.S.C. 4001 etseq.
(2) Housing and Urban Development Act . of
1969 (Pub . L. 9 i -152, approved December 24, 3 969).
(3) Flood Disaster Protection Acl of 1973 (87 Stat.
980), Public Law 93-234, approved December 31 ,
1973. -
(4) Section 816 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (87 Stat. 975), Public Law
93-383, approved August 22, 1974.
(5) Public Law 5-128 (effective October 12, 1977) .
(6) The above statutes are included in 42 U.S.C. 400!
etseq.
(b) The following are references relevant lo the
National Flood Insurance Program:
(1) Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management, ,
dated May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951, May 25, 3977)) .
(2) The Flood Control Acl of 1960 (Pub. L. 86645).
(3) Title 11, section 314 of title III and section 406 of
title IV of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Pub. L.
93-288).
(4) Coastal Zone Management Acl (Pub . L. 92583),
as amended Public Law 94-370.
(5) Water Resources Pianning Act (Pub. L. 8990), as
amended Public Law 94-112 (October 16, 1975).
(6) Title I, National Environmental Policy Act (Pub.
L. 91-190).
NFIP Regulations
(7) Land and Water Conservation Fund Acl (Pub. L.
89-578), and subsequent amendments thereto.
(8) Water Resources Council, Principals and
Standards for Planning, Water and Related Land
Resources (38 FR 24778-24869, September 10,
1973).
(9) Executive Order 11593 (Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment), dated
May 13, 1971 (36 FR 8921, May 15, 1971) .
(10) 89th Cong. , 2nd Session, H.D. 465.
(11) Required iand use element for comprehensive
planning assistance under section'701 .of the Housing
Act of 1954, as amended by the Housing and
Community Deveiopment Acl of 1974 (24 CFR
600.72).
(12) Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands,
dated May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951, May 25, 1977)) .
(J 3) Water Resources Council (Guidance for
Floodplain Management) (42 FR 52590, September
30, 1977) .
(14) Unified National Program for Floodplain
Management of the United Stales Water Resources
Council, July 1976.
(c) The following reference guidelines represent the
views of the Federal Insurance Administration with
respect to the mandatory purchase of flood insurance
under section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973: Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance
Guidelines (54 FR 29666-29695, July 13, 1989). [41
FR 46968, Ocl. 26, 1976, as amended at 43 FR 7140,
Feb. 17, 1978 . Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May
31, 1979, and amended at 57 FR 19540, May 7,
1992]
Subpart B—EIigibHity Requirements §
59.21 Purpose of subpart.
This subpart lists actions that must be taken by a
community to become eligible and to remain eligible
for the Program.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31, 1979]
§ 59.22 Prerequisites for the sale of fiood
insurance.
(a) To qualify for flood insurance availability a
community shall apply for the entire area within its
jurisdiction, and shall submit:
(1) Copies of legislative and executive actions
indicating a local need for flood insurance and an
explicit desire to participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program;
E-l
Page 48
001092
(2) Citations to Stale and local statutes and
ordinances authorizing actions regulating land use
and copies of the local laws and regulations
cited;
(3) A copy ofthe flood plain management regulations
the community has adopted to meet the requirements
of Sec. 60.3, 60.4 and/or Sec. 60.5 of this subchapter.
This submission shall include copies of any zoning,
building, and subdivision regulations, health codes,
special purpose ordinances (such as a flood plain
ordinance, grading ordinance, or flood-related erosion
control ordinance), and any other corrective and
preventive measures enacted to reduce or prevent
flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) or flood-related
erosion damage;
(4) A list ofthe incorporated communities within the
applicant's boundaries;
(5) Estimates relating to the community as a whole
and to the flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and flood-
related erosion prone areas
concerning:
(!) Population;
(ii) Number of one to four family residences;
(iii) Number of small businesses; and
(iv) Number of all other structures.
(6) Address of a local repository, such as a municipal
building, where the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps
(FHBMs) and Flood insurance Rale Maps (FIRM'S)
will be made available for public inspection;
(7) A summary of any Stale or Federal activities with
respect to flood plain, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) or
flood-related erosion area management within the
community, such as federally-funded flood control
projects and State-administered flood plain
management regulations;
(8) A commitment lo recognize and duly evaluate
flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and/or flood-related
erosion hazards in all official actions in the areas
having special flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and/or
flood-related erosion hazards and to lake such other
official action reasonably necessaiy to carry out the
objectives ofthe program: and
(9) A commitment to:
(i) Assist the Administrator at his/her request, in
his/her delineation of the limits of the areas having
special flood, mudslide
(i.e. , mudflow) or flood-related erosion hazards;
(ii) Provide such information concerning present uses
and occupancy of the flood plain, mudslide (i.e. ,
mudflow) or flood-related erosion areas as the
Administrator may request;
(iii) Maintain for public inspection and furnish
upon request, for the determination of applicable
flood insurance risk premium rates wilhin all
areas having special flood hazards identified on a
FHBM or FIRM, any certificates of
fioodproofing, and information on the elevation
(in relation to mean sea level) o f t he level of the
lowest floor (including basement) of al l 'new or
substantially improved structures, and include
whether or nol such slructures contain a
basement, and i f the structure has been
fioodproofed. the elevation (in relation to mean
sea level) to which the structure was
fioodproofed;
(iv) Cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies
and private firms which undertake to study, survey,
map, and identify flood plain, mudslide (i.e. ,
mudflow) or flood-related erosion areas, and
cooperate with neighboring communities with respect
lo the managemenl of adjoining flood plain, mud
slide (i.e. , mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion
areas in order to prevent aggravation of existing
hazards;
(v) Upon occurrence, notify the Administrator in
writing whenever the boundaries of the community
have been modified by annexation or the community
has otherwise assumed or no longer has authority to
adopt and enforce flood
plain management regulations for a particular area, in
order that all FHBM's and FIRM'S accurately
represent the community's boundaries, include within
such notification a copy ofa map of the community
suitable for reproduction, clearly delineating the new
corporate limits or new area for which the community
has assumed or relinquished flood plain managemenl
regulatory authority,
(b) An applicant shall legislatively;
(1) Appoint or designate the agency or offic ial with
the responsibility, authority, and means to implemem
the commitments made in paragraph
(a) of this section, and
(2) Designate the official responsible to submit a
report to the Administrator concerning the
community participation in the Program, including,
but not limited to the development and
implementation of flood plain management
regulations. This report shall be submitted annually
or biennially as determined by the Administrator.
(c) The documents required by paragraph (a) of this
section and evidence of the actions required by
paragraph (b) of this seciion shall be submitted to the
NFIP Regulations
E-12
Page 49
001093
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington DC 20472.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31, 1979 and amended at 48 FR 29318,
June 24, 1983; 48 FR 44543, and 44552, Sept. 29,
1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984; 49 FR 33656, Aug.
24, 1984; 50 FR
36023, Sept. 4, I985J
§ 59.23 Priorities for the sale of flood insurance
under the regular program.
Flood-prone, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and flood-
related erosion prone communities are placed on a
register of areas eligible for ratemaking studies and
then selected from this register for ratemaking studies
on the basis ofthe following considerations—
(a) Recommendations of State offic ials;
(b) Location of community and urgency of need for
flood insurance;
(c) Population of community and intensity of existing
or proposed development ofthe flood plain, the mud
slide (i.e., mudflow) and the flood-related erosion
area;
(d) Availability of infonnation on the community
with respect to its fiood, mudslide
(i.e., mudflow) and flood-related erosion
characteristics an d previous losses;
(e) Extent of Slate and local progress in flood plain,
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) area and flood-related
erosion area management, including adoption of
flood plain management regulations consistent with
related ongoing programs in the area.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated al 44 FR
31177, May 31, 1979] ,
§ 59.24 Suspension of community eligibility.
(a) A community eligible for the sale of fiood
insurance shall be subject to suspension from the
Program for failing to submit copies of adequate
flood plain managemenl regulations meeting the
minimum requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e)
or (f) of Sec.60.3 or paragraph (b) of Sec.60.4 or
Sec.60.5, within six months from the date the
Administrator provides the data upon which the fiood
plain regulations for the applicable paragraph shall be
based . Where there has not been any submission by
the community, the Administrator shall notify the
community that 90 days remain in Ihe six month
period in order to submit adequate flood plain
management regulations. Where there has been an
inadequate submission, the Administrator shall notify
the community of the specific deficiencies in its
submitted flood plain management regulations and
inform the community of the amount of time
remaining within the six month period. If,
subsequently, copies of adequate flood plain
managemenl regulations are not received by the
Administrator, no later than 30 days before the
expiration of the original six month period the
Administrator shall provide written notice to the
community and lo the state and assure publication in
the Federal Register under part 64 of this subchapter
of the community's loss of eligibility for the sale of
flood insurance, such suspension to become effective
upon the expiration of the six month period . Should
the community remedy the defect and the
Administrator receive copies of adequate flood plain
management regulations within the notice period, the
suspension notice shall be rescinded by the
Administrator. If the Administrator receives notice
from the State that it has enacted adequate flood plain
management regulations for the community within
the notice period, the
suspension notice shall be rescinded by the
Administrator. The community's eligibility shall
remain terminated after suspension until copies of
adequate flood plain management regulations have
been received and approved by the Administrator,
(b) A community eligible for the sale of flood
insurance which fails to adequately enforce flood
plain management regulations meeting the minimum
requirements set forth in Sec. 60.3,
60.4 and/or 60.5 shall be subject to probation.
. Probation shall represent formal notification to the
community thai the Administrator regards the
community's flood plain management program as not
compliant with NFIP criteria. Prior to imposing
probation, the Administrator
(!) shall'mform the community upon .90 days prior
written notice ofthe impending probation and ofthe
specific program deficiencies and violations relative
to the failure to enforce,
(2) shall, at least 60 days before probation is to begin,
issue a press release to-local media explaining the
reasons for and the effects of probation, and
(3) shall, at least 90 days before probation is to begin,
advise all policyholders in the community of the
impending probation and the additional premium that
will be charged, as provided in this paragraph, on
policies sold or renewed during the period of
probation. During this 90-day period the community
shall have the opportunity to avoid probation by
demonstrating compliance with Program
NFIP Regulations
£-13
Page 50
001094
requirements, or by correcting Program deficiencies
and remedying all violations to
the maximum exient possible. If, at the end ofthe 90-
day period, the Administrator determines that the
community has failed to do so, the probation shall go
inlo effect. Probation may be
. continued for up to one year after the community
corrects all Program deficiencies and remedies all
violations to the maximum extent possible. Flood
insurance may be sold or renewed in the community
while it is on probation. Where a policy covers
property located in a community placed on probation
on or after October 1, 1986, but prior to October 1,
1992, an additional premium of $25.00 shall be
charged on each such policy newly issued or renewed
during the one-year period beginning on the date the
community is placed on probation and during any
successive one-year periods that begin prior to
October 1, 1992. Where a community's probation
begins on or after October 1, 1992, the additional
premium described in the preceding sentence shall be
$50.00, which shall also be charged during any
successive one-year periods during which the
community remains on probation for any part thereof.
This $50.00 additional premium shall further be
charged during any successive one-year periods that
begin on or after October 1, 1992, where the
preceding one-year probation period began prior to
October 1, 1992.
(c) A community eligible for the sale of flood
insurance which fails to adequately enforce its flood
plain management regulations meeting the minimum
requirements set forth in Sec. 60.3,
60.4 and/or 60. 5 and does not correct its Program
deficiencies and remedy all violations to the
maximum exient possible in accordance with
compliance deadlines established during a period of
probation shall be subject lo suspension of its
Program eligibility. Under such circumstances, the
Administrator shall grant the community 30 days in
which to show cause why it should nol be suspended.
The Administrator may conduct a hearing, written or
oral, before commencing suspensive action. If a
community is to be suspended, the Administrator
shall inform it upon 30 days prior written notice and
upon publication in the Federal Register under part
64 of this subchapter of its loss of eligibility for the
sale of flood insurance. In the event of impending
suspension, the Administrator shall issue a press
release to the local media explaining the reasons and
effects ofthe suspension. The community's eligibility
shall only be reinstated by the Administrator upon his
receipt of a local legislative or executive measure
reaffirming the community's formal intent to
adequately enforce the flood plain management
requirements of this subpart, together with evidence
of action taken by the community to correct Program
deficiencies and remedy io the maximum extern
possible those violations which caused the
suspension, in certain cases, the Administrator, in
order to evaluate the community's performance under
the terms of its submission, may withhold
reinstatement for a period not to exceed one year
from the date of his receipt of the satisfactory
submission or place the community on probation as
provided for in paragraph (b) of this section,
(d) A community eligible for the sale of fiood
insurance which repeals its flood plain management
regulations, allows its regulations to lapse, or amends
its regulations so that they
no longer meel the minimum requirements set forth
in Sec. 60.3, 60.4 and/or 60.5 shall be suspended
from the Program. If a community
is to be suspended, the Administrator shall inform it
upon 30 days prior written notice and upon
publication in the Federal Register under pan 64 of
this subchapter of its loss of eligibility for the sale of
flood insurance. The community eligibility shall
remain terminated after suspension until copies of
adequate flood plain management regulations have
been received and approved by the Administrator,
(e) A community eligible for the sale of fiood
insurance may withdraw from the Program by
submitting to the Administrator a copy of a
legislative action that explicitly states ils desire to
withdraw from the National Flood Insurance
Program. Upon receipt ofa certified copy of a final
legislative action, the Administrator shall withdraw
the community from the Program and publish in the
Federal Register underpart 64 of this subchapter ils
loss of eligibility for the sale of flood insurance. A
community that has withdrawn from the Program
may be reinstated if its submits the application
materials specified in Sec. 59.22(a).
( 0 If during a period of ineligibility under paragraphs
(a), (d), or (e) of this section, a community has
permitted actions to.take place that have aggravated
existing flood plain, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and/or
fiood related erosion hazards, the Administrator may
withhold reinstatement until the community submits
evidence that it has taken action to remedy lo the
maximum extent possible the increased hazards. The
Administrator may also place the reinstated
community on probation as provided for in paragraph
NFIP Regulations
E-14
Page 51
001095
(b) of this section.
(g) The Administrator shall promptly notify the
servicing company and any insurers issuing flood
· insurance pursuant to an arrangement with the
Administrator of those communities whose eligibility
has been suspended or which have withdrawn from
the program. Flood insurance shall not be sold or
renewed in those communiiies. Policies sold or
renewed within a community during a period of
ineligibility are deemed to be voidable by the
Administrator whether or not the parties to sale or
renewal had actual notice ofthe ineligibility.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976 . Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31 , 1979, and amended at 48 FR 44543
and 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984;
50 FR 36023, Sept. 4, 1985; 57 FR 19540, May 7,
1992; 59 FR 53598, Oct. 25, 1994; 62 FR 55715,
Oct. 27, 1997]
PART 60-CRITER1A
MANAGEMENT AND USE
FOR
LAND
Subpart A—Requirements for Fiood Plain
Management Regulations
Sec.
60.1 Purpose of subpart .
60.2 Minimum compliance with flood plain
management criteria.
60.3 Flood plain managemenl criteria for flood-prone
areas.
60.4 Flood plain management criteria for mudslide
(i.e. , mudflow)-prone areas .
60.5 Flood plain management criteria for flood-
related erosion-prone areas .
60.6 Variances and exceptions.
60.7 Revisions of criteria for flood plain management
regulations.
60.8 Definitions.
Subpart B—Requirements for State Flood Plain
Management Regulations
Sec.
60.11 Purpose of this subpart .
60.12 Flood plain management criteria for State-
owned properties in special hazard areas .
60.13 Noncompliance.
NFIP Regulations
Subpart C—Additional Considerations in
Managing Flood-Prone, Mudslide (i.e., Mudflow)-
Prone, and Flood-Related Erosion-Prone Areas
Sec.
60.21 Purpose of this subpart .
60.22 Planning considerations for flood-prone areas .
60.23 Pianning considerations for mudslide (i.e. ,
mudflow)-prone areas .
60.24 Planning considerations for flood-related
erosion-prone areas .
60.25 Designation, duties, and responsibilities of
Slate Coordinating Agencies.
60.26 Local coordination.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. ;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR
41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. , p. 329; E.O. 12127
of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979
Comp., p. 376.
Source: 41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976, unless
otherwise noted. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177,
May 31, 1979.
§ 60.1 Purpose of subpart .
(a) The Act provides that flood insurance shall not be
sold or renewed under the program within a
community, unless the community has adopted
adequate flood plain management regulations
consistent with Federal criteria. Responsibility for
establishing such criteria is delegated to the
Administrator.
(b) This subpart sets forth the criteria developed in
accordance with the Act by which the Administrator
will determine the adequacy ofa community's flood
plain management regulations. These regulations
must be legally-enforceable, applied uniformly
throughout the community to ail privately and
publicly owned land within flood-prone, mudslide
(i.e. , mudflow) or flood-related erosion areas, and the
community must provide that the regulations take
^precedence over any less restric tive conflicting local
laws, ordinances or codes. Except as otherwise
provided in Sec. 60.6, the adequacy of such
regulations shall be determined on the basis of the
standards set forth in Sec. 60.3 for flood-prone areas,
Sec. 60.4 for mudslide areas and Sec. 60.5 for flood-
related erosion areas .
(c) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as
modifying or replacing the general requirement that
all eligible communities musl take into account flood,
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and flood-related erosion
hazards, to the extent lhal they are known, in all
official actions relating to land management and use.
E-15
Page 52
Gbl096
(d) The criteria set forth in this subpart are minimum
standards for the adoption of flood plain management
regulations by flood-prone, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)-
prone and flood-related erosion-prone communities.
Any community may exceed the minimum criteria
under this part by adopting more comprehensive
flood plain management regulations utilizing the
standards such as contained in subpart C of this part-
In some instances, community officials may have
access to information or knowledge of conditions that
require, particularly for human safety, higher
standards than the minimum criteria set forth in
subpart A of this part. Therefore, any flood plain
management regulations adopted by a State or a
community which are more restrictive than the
criteria set forth in this part are encouraged and shall
take precedence.
[41 FR 46975, Ocl. 26, 1976. Redesignated al 44 FR
31I7 7 ,May3] , 1979,
as amended at 48 FR 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR
4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
§ 60.2 Minimum compliance with flood plain
management criteria.
(a) A flood-prone community applying for flood
insurance eligibility shall meet the standards of
Sec.60.3(a) in order to become eligible if a FHBM
has not been issued for the community at the time of
application. Thereafter, the community will be given
a period of six months from the date the
Administrator provides the data set forth in
Sec.60.3(b), (c), (d), (e) or (0 , in which to meet the
requirements of the applicable paragraph. If a
community has received a FHBM, but has not yet
applied for Program eligibility, the community shall
apply for eligibility directly under the standards sel
·forth in Sec.60.3(b). Thereafter, the community will
be given a period of six months from the date the
Administrator provides the data set forth in
Sec.60.3(c), (d), (e) or (f) in which to meet the
requirements ofthe applicable paragraph.
(b) A mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)-prone community
applying for flood insurance eligibility shall meet the
standards of Sec. 60.4(a) to become eligible .
Thereafter, the community will be given a period of
six months from the date the mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)
areas having special mudslide hazards arc delineated
in which to meet the requirements of Sec. 60.4(b).
(c) A flood-related erosion-prone community
applying for flood insurance eligibility shall meet the
;
standards of Sec. 60.5(a) to become eligible .
Thereafter, the community will be given a period of
NFIP Regulations
six months from the date the flood-related erosion
areas having special erosion hazards are delineated in
which lo meel the requirements of Sec. 60.5(b).
(d) Communiiies identified in part 65 of this
subchapter as containing more lhan one type of
hazard (e.g. , any combination of special flood,
mudsl.ide (i.e. , mudflow), and flood-related erosion
hazard areas) shall adopt flood plain managemenl
regulations for each type of hazard consistent with
the requirements of Sec.Sec. 60.3, 60.4 and 60.5 .
(e) Local flood plain management regulations may be
submitted to the State Coordinating Agency
designated pursuant to Sec. 60.25 for ils advice and
concurrence. The submission to the State shall clearly
describe proposed enforcement procedures.
(f) The community official responsible for submitting
annual or biennial reports to the Administrator
pursuant to Sec. 59.22Cb)(2) of this, subchapter shall
also submit copies of each annual or biennial report
to any Stale Coordinating Agency.
(g) A community shall assure lhal its comprehensive
plan is consislenl with the flood plain managemenl
objectives of this part.
(h) The community shall adopt and enforce flood
plain managemenl regulations based on data provided
by the Administrator. Without prior approval of the
Administrator, the community shall not adopt and
enforce flood plain management regulations based
upon modified data reflecting natural or man-made
physical changes.
[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26; 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR
3 1177, May 31,1979, as amended at 48 FR 2931 8,
June 24, 1983; 48 FR 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR
4751, Feb. 8, 1984; 50 FR 36024, Sept. 4, 1985; 59
FR 53598, Ocl. 25, 3 994; 62 FR 55716, Oct. 27,
1997]
§ 6 03 Flood plain management criteria for flood-
prone areas.
The Administrator will provide the data upon which
flood plain managemenl regulations shall be based. If
the Administrator has not provided sufficienl data to
furnish a basis for these regulations in a particular
community, the community shall obtain, review and
reasonably utilize data available from other Federal,
State or other sources pending receipt of data from
the Administrator. However, when special flood
hazard area designations and water surface elevations
have been furnished by the Administrator, they shall
apply. The symbols defining such special flood
hazard designations are set forth in Sec. 64.3 of this
subchapter. In ail cases the minimum requirements
E-16
Page 53
001097
governing the adequacy of the flood plain
management regulations for flood-prone areas
adopted by a particular community depend on the
amount of technical data formally provided lo the
community by the Administrator. Minimum
standards for communities are as follows:
(a) When the Administrator has nol defined the
special fiood hazard areas within a community, has
not provided water surface elevation data, and has not
provided sufficient data to identify the floodway or
coastal high hazard area, but the community has
indicated the presence of such hazards by submitting
ah application lo participate in the Program, the
community shall:
(1) Require permits for all proposed construction or
other development in the community, including the
placement of manufactured homes, so that it may
determine whether such construclion or other
deveiopment is proposed within flood-prone areas;
(2) Review proposed developmenl to assure that alt
necessary permits have been received from those
governmental agencies from which approval is
required by Federal or State law. including section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972,33 U.S.C. 1334;
(3) Review all permit applications to determine
whether proposed building sites will be reasonably
safe from flooding. If a proposed building sile is in a
' flood-prone area, all new construction and substantial
improvements shall
(i) be designed (or modified) and adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral
movement of the structure resulting from
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the
effects of buoyancy, (ii) be constructed with materials
resistant to flood damage, (iii) be constructed by
methods and practices that minimize flood damages,
and (iv) be constructed with electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning
equipment and other service facilities that are
designed and/or localed so as to prevent water from
entering or accumulating wilhin the components
during conditions of flooding.
(4) Review subdivision proposals and other proposed
new development, including manufactured home
parks or subdivisions, to determine whether such
proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a
subdivision proposal or other proposed new
development is in a flood-prone area; any such
proposals shall be reviewed to assure that (i) all such
proposals are consistent with the need to minimize
flood damage within the flood-prone area, (ii) all
public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas .
electrical, and water systems are located and
conslrucied to minimize or eliminate flood damage,
and (iii) adequate drainage is provided to reduce
exposure to flood hazards;
(5) Require within flood-prone areas new and
replacement water supply systems to be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters inlo
the systems; and
(6) Require wilhin flood-prone areas (i) new and
replacement sanitary sewage systems to be designed
to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters
inlo the systems and discharges from the systems into
flood waters and (ii) onsite waste disposal systems to
be localed to avoid impairment to them or
contamination from them during flooding.
(b) When the Administrator has designated areas of
special flood hazards (A zones) by the publication of
a community's FHBM or FIRM, but has neither
produced waler surface elevation data nor identified a
floodway or coastal high hazard area^ the community
shall:
(1) Require permits for all proposed construction and
other developments including the placement of
manufactured homes, within Zone A on the
community's FHBM or FIRM;
(2) Require the application of the standards in
paragraphs (a) (2),
(3), (4), (5) and (6) of this section to developmenl
wilhin Zone A on the community's FHBM or FIRM;
(3) Require that all new subdivision proposals and
other proposed developments (including proposals
for manufactured home parks and subdivisions)
greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the
lesser, include within such proposals base flood
elevation data; (4) Obiain, review and reasonably
utilize any base flood elevalion and floodway . data
available from a. Federal, State, or other source,
including data developed pursuant to paragraph (bX3)
of this section, as criteria for requiring that new
construction, substantial improvements, or other
development in Zone A on the community's FHBM
or FIRM meet the standards in paragraphs (cX2),
(cX3), (cX5), (c)(6)- (c)(!2), (cXM), (d)(2) and (d)(3)
of this seciion;
(5) Where base flood elevation data are utilized,
within Zone A on the community's FHBM or FIRM:
NFIP Regulations E-l 7
Page 54
001098
(i) Obtain the elevation (in relation io mean sea level)'
of the lowest floor(inc!uding basement) of all new
and substantially improved structures, and
(ii) Obtain, if the structure has been fioodproofed in
accordance with paragraph (cX3)(ii) of this section,
the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) lo which
the structure was fioodproofed, and
(iii) Maintain a record of all such information with
the official designated by the community under Sec.
59.22 (a)(9Xiii);
(6) Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent
communities and the State Coordinating Office prior
to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and
submit copies of such notifications to the
Administrator;
(7) Assure thai the flood carrying capacity within the
altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is
maintained;
(8) Require that all manufactured homes to be placed
within Zone A bn a community's FHBM or FIRM
shall be installed using methods and practices which
minimize fiood damage. For the purposes of this
requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated
and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral
movement . Methods of anchoring may include, but
are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame
ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in
addition to applicable Slate and local anchoring
requirements for resisting wind forces.
(c) When the Administrator has provided a notice of
final flood elevations for one or more special flood
hazard areas on the community's FIRM and, if
appropriate, has designated other special flood hazard
areas without base flood elevations on the
community's FIRM, but has not identified a
regulatory floodway or coastal high hazard area, the
community shall:
(.1) Require the standards of paragraph (b) of this
seciion within all Al-30 zones, AE zones, A zones,
AH zones, and AO zones, on the community's FIRM;
(2) Require that all new construclion and substantial
improvements of residential structures within Zones
Al-30, AE and AH zones on the community's FIRM
have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated
to or above the base flood level, unless the
community is granted an exception by the
Administrator for the allowance of basements in
accordance with Sec. 60.6 (b) or (c);
(3) Require that all new construction and substantial
improvements of non-residential structures within
Zones Al-30, AE and AH zones on the community's
'firm (i) have the lowest fioor (including basement)
elevated to or above the base flood level or, (ii)
. together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,
be designed so that below the base fiood level the
structure is watertight with walls substantially
impermeable to the passage of water and with
structural components having the capability of
resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and
effects of buoyancy;
(4) Provide that where a non-residential structure is
intended to be made watertight below the base fiood
ievel, (i) a registered professional engineer or
architect shall develop and/or review structural
design, specifications, and plans for the construction,
and shall certify that the design and methods of
construction are in accordance with accepted
standards of practice for meeting the applicable
provisions of paragraph (cX3)(ii) or (c)(8Xii) of this .
section, and (ii) a record of such certificates which
includes the specific elevation (in relation to mean
sea level) to which such structures are fioodproofed
shall be maintained wilh ihe offic ial designated by
the community under Sec. 59.22(aX9Xiii);
(5) Require, for all new construction and substantial
improvements, lhat fully enclosed areas below the
lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of
vehicles, building access or storage in an area olher
than a basemenl and which are subject to flooding
shall be designed to automatically equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing
for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for
meeting this requirement musl either be cenified by a
regislered professional engineer or architect or meet
or exceed the following minimum criteria: A
minimum of two openings having a total net area of
not less than one square inch for every square foot of
enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided.
The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than
one foot above grade . Openings may be equipped
wilh screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or
devices provided that they pennit the automatic entry
and exit of floodwaters.
(6) Require that manufactured homes that are placed
or substantially improved within Zones Al-30, AH,
and AE on the community's FIRM on sites
(i) Outside of a manufactured home park or
subdivision,
(ii) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
(iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured
home park or subdivision, or
(iv) In an existing manufactured home park or
subdivision on which a manufactured home has
incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a
NFIP Regulations
E-18
Page 55
001099
fiood, be elevated on a permanent foundation such
that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is
elevated lo or above the base flood elevalion and be
securely anchored to an adequately anchored
foundation system to resist floatation collapse and
lateral movement.
(7) Require within any AO zone on the community's
FIRM that all new construction and substantial
improvements of residential structures have the
lowest floor, (including basement) elevated above the
highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth
number specified in feet on the community's FIRM
(at least two feet if no depth number is specified);
(8) Require within any AO zone on the community's
FIRM that all new construction and substantial
improvements of nonresidential structures
(i) have the lowest floor (including basement)
elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as
high as the depth number specified in feet on the
community's FIRM (al least two feet if no depth
number is specified), or
(ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary
facilities be completely fioodproofed to that level to
meet the fioodproofing standard specified in Sec.
60.3(cX3Xii);
(9) Require within any A99 zones on a community's
FIRM the standards of paragraphs (aXO through
(aX^XO and (b)(5) through (b)(9) of this section;
(10) Require until a regulatory floodway is
designated, that no new construction, substantial
improvements, or other development (including fill)
shall be permitted within Zones Al-30 and AE on the
community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the
cumulative effect ofthe proposed development, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated
development, will not increase the water surface
elevation ofthe base flood more than one foot at any
point within the community.
(11) Require within Zones AH and AO, adequate
drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide
floodwaters around and away from proposed
structures.
(12) Require that manufactured homes to be placed or
substantially improved on sites in an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones
A-l-30, AH, and AE on the community's FIRM that
are not subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)(6)
of this section be elevated so that either
(i) The lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or
above the base fiood elevalion, or
(ii) The manufactured home chassis is supported by
reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at
least equivalent strength that are no less than 36
inches in height above grade and be securely
anchored lo an adequately anchored foundation
system to resist floatation, collapse, and lateral
movement.
(13) Notwithstanding any other provisions of Sec.
60.3, a community may approve certain developmenl
in Zones Al-30, AE, and AH, on the community's
FIRM which increase the water surface elevation of
the base flood by more than one foot, provided that
the community first applies for a conditional FIRM
revision, fulfills the requirements for such a revision
as established under the provisions of Sec. 65.12, and
receives the approval ofthe Administrator.
(14) Require that recreational vehicles placed on sites
within Zones Al-30, AH, and AE on the community's
FIRM either
(i) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive
days,
(ii) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or
(iii) Meel the permit requirements of paragraph (b)(1)
of this section and the elevation and anchoring
requirements for ""manufactured homes" in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if il is
on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site
only by quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices, and has no permanently attached additions.
NFIP Regulations
E-I9
Page 56
001100
(d) When the Administrator has provided a notice of
final base flood elevations within Zones Al-30
and/or AE on the community's FIRM and, if
appropriate, has designated AO zones, AH zones,
A99 zones, and A zones on the community's FIRM,
and has provided data from which the community
shall designate its regulatory floodway, the
community shall:
(1) Meet the requirements of paragraphs (c) (1)
through (14) of this section;
(2) Select and adopt a regulatory floodway based on
the principle that the area chosen for the regulatory
floodway musl be designed to carry the waters ofthe
base flood, without increasing the water surface
elevation of that flood more than one foot at any
point;
(3) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements, and other
development within the adopled regulatory floodway.
unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic
and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance wilh
standard engineering practice that the proposed
encroachment would not result in any increase in
flood levels within the community during the
occurrence ofthe base flood discharge;
(4) Notwithstanding any other provisions of Sec.
60.3, a community may permit encroachments within
the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in
an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the
community first applies for a conditional FIRM and
floodway revision, fulfills the requirements for such
revisions as established under the provisions of Sec.
65.12, and receives the approval ofthe Administrator,
(e) When the Administrator has provided a notice of
final base flood elevations within Zones Al-30
and/or AE on the community's FIRM and, if
appropriate, has designated AH zones, AO zones,
A99 zones, and A zones on the community's FIRM,
and has identified on the community's FIRM coastal
high hazard areas by designating Zones VI-30, VE,
and/or V, the community shall:
(1) Meet the requirements of paragraphs (cXU
through (14) of this section;
(2) Within Zones VI-30, VE, and V on a
community's FIRM, (i ) obtain the elevation (in
relation to mean sea level) ofthe bottom ofthe lowest
structural member of the lowest floor (excluding
pilings and columns) of all new and substantially
improved structures, and whether or not such
structures contain a basement, and (ii) maintain a
record of all such information with the official
designated by the community under Sec.
59.22(a)(9Xiii);
(3) Provide that all new construction within Zones
VI-30, VE, and V on the community's FIRM is
located landward ofthe reach of mean high tide;
(4) Provide that all new construction and substantial
improvements in Zones Vl-30 and VE, and also
Zone V if base flood elevation data is available, on
the community's FIRM, are elevated on pilings and
columns so lhat
(i) the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural
member ofthe lowest floor (excluding the pilings or
columns) is elevated to or above the base flood level;
and
(ii) the pile or column foundation and structure
attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation,
collapse and lateral movement due to the effects of
wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all
building components. Water loading values used
shall be those associated with the base flood. Wind
loading values used shall be those required by
applicable State or local building standards. A
registered professional engineer or architect shall
develop or review the structural design, specifications
and plans for the construclion, and shall certify thai
the design and methods of construction to be used are
in accordance with accepted standards of practice for
meeting the provisions of paragraphs (e)(4)
(i) and (ii) of this section.
(5) Provide that all new construclion and substantial
improvements within Zones Vl-30, VE, and V on the
community's FIRM have the space below the lowest
floor either free of obstruction or constructed with
non-supporting breakaway walls, open wood lattice-
work, or insect screening intended lo collapse under
wind and water loads without causing collapse,
displacement, or olher structural damage to the
elevated portion of the building or supporting
foundation system . For the purposes of this section, a
breakway wall shall have a design safe loading
resistance.of not less than 10 and no more than 20
pounds per square foot Use of breakway walls which
exceed a design safe loading resistance of 20 pounds
per square fool (either by design or when so required
by local or State codes) may be permitted only if a
registered professional engineer or architect certifies
that the designs proposed meet the, following
conditions:
(i) Breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water
load less than that which would occur during the base
flood; and,
(ii) The elevated portion of the building and
supporting foundation system shall not be subject to
NFIP Regulations E-20
Page 57
OullOl
^-- collapse, displacement, or other structural damage
due to the effects of wind and water loads acting
simultaneously on all building components (structural
and non-structural). Waler loading values used shall
be those associated with the base flood. Wind loading
values used shall be those required by applicable
State or local building standards. Such enclosed space
shall be useable solely for parking of vehic les,
building access, or.storage.
(6) Prohibit the use of fill for structural suppon of
buildings within Zones Vl-30, VE, and V on the
community's FIRM;
. (7) Prohibit man-made alteration of sand dunes and
mangrove stands within Zones Vl-30, VE, and V on
the community's FIRM which would increase
potential flood damage.
(8) Require that manufactured homes placed or
substantially improved within Zones Vl-30, V, and
VE on the community's FIRM on sites
(i) Outside of a manufactured .home park or
subdivision,
(ii) in a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
(iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured
home park or subdivision, or
(iv) In an existing manufactured home park or
subdivision on which a manufactured home has
mcurred "substantial damage" as the resuil of a
flood, meet the standards of paragraphs (e)(2)
through (7) of this section and that manufactured
homes placed or substantially improved on other sites
in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision
within Zones Vl-30, V, and VE on the community's
FIRM meet the requirements of paragraph (cX12) of
this section.
(9) Require that recreational vehicles placed on sites
within Zones Vl-30, V, and V£ on the community's
FIRM either
(i) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive
days,
(ii) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or
(iii) Meet the requirements in paragraphs (bXI) and
(e) (2) through (7) of this seciion.
A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if il is
on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the sile
' only by quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices, and has no permanently attached additions.
(f) When the Administrator has provided a notice of
final base flood elevations within Zones AI -30 or AE
on the community's FIRM, and, if appropriate, has
designated AH zones, AO zones, A99 zones, and A
i zones on the community's FIRM, and has identified
flood protection restoration areas by designating
Zones AR, ARyAI-30, AR/AE, AR/AH, AR/AO, or
AR/A, the community shall:
(1) Meet the requirements of paragraphs (cX 1)
through (14) and (dX I) through (4) of this section.
(2) Adopt the offic ial map or legal description of
those areas within Zones AR, AR/AI-30, AR/AE,
AR/AH, AR/A, or AR/AO that are designated
developed areas as defined in Sec.59.1 in accordance
with the eligibility procedures under Sec.65.14.
(3) For all new construction of structures in areas
within Zone AR thai are designated as developed
areas and in other areas within Zone AR where the
AR flood depth is 5 feet or less;
(i) Determine the lower of either the AR base flood
elevation or the elevation thai is 3 feet above highest
adjacent grade: and
(ii) Using this elevation, require the standards of
paragraphs (c)(1) through (14) of this section.
(4) For all new construction of slructures in those
areas wilhin Zone AR that are hot designated as
developed areas where the AR flood depth is greater
than 5 feet:
(i) Determine the AR base flood elevation; and
(ii) Using that elevation require the standards of
paragraphs (cXO through (14) of this section.
(5) For all new construclion of structures in areas
within Zone AR/AI-30, AR/AE, AR/AH, AR/AO,
and AR/A:
(i) Determine the applicable elevation for Zone AR
from paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section;
(ii) Determine the base flood elevation or flood depth
- for the underlying Al -30, AE, AH, AO and A Zone;
and (iii) Using the higher elevation from paragraphs
(a)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section require the standards
of paragraphs (cXO through (14) of Ihis section.
(6) For all substantial improvements to existing
construction within Zones AR/AI-30, AR/AE.
AR/AH, AR/AO, and AR/A:
(i) Determine the Al-30 or AE, AH, AO, or A Zone
base flood elevation: and
(ii) Using this elevation apply the requirements of
paragraphs (cXl) through (14) of this section.
(7) Notify the permit applicant that the area has, been
designated as an AR, AR/AI-30, AR/AE, AR/AH,
AR/AO, or AR/A Zone and whether the structure will
be elevated or protected to or above the AR base
fiood elevation.
[41 FR 46975, Ocl. 26, 1976]
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations
affecting Sec. 60.3, see the List of CFR Sections
Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section
ofthe printed volume and on GPO Access.
NFIP Regulations £-21
Page 58
001102
§ 60.4 Flood plain management criteria for
mudslide (Le. , mudflow)-prone areas.
The Administrator will provide the data upon which
flood plain management regulations shall be based. If
the Administrator has not provided sufficient dala lo
furnish a basis for these regulations in a particular
community, the community shall obtain, review, and
reasonably utilize data available from other Federal,
State or other sources pending receipt of data from
the Administrator. However, when special mudslide
(i.e. , mudflow) hazard area designations have been
furnished by the Administrator, they shall apply . The
symbols defining such special mudslide (i.e.,
mudflow) hazard designations are set forth in Sec.
64.3 of this subchapter. In all cases, the minimum
requirements for mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)-prone
areas adopted by a particular community depend on
the amount of technical data provided to the
community by the Administrator. Minimum
standards for communities are as follows:
(a) When the Administrator has not yet identified any
area within the community as an area having special
mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards, but the community
has indicated the presence of such hazards by
submitting an application to participate in the
Program, the community shall
(1) Require permits for al! proposed construction or
other developmenl in the community so thai it may
determine whether development is proposed within
mudslide (i.e., mudflow)-prone areas;
(2) Require review of each permit application to
determine whether the proposed site and
improvements will be reasonably safe from
mudslides (i.e. , mudflows). Factors to be considered
in making such a determination should include but
not be limited to (i) the type and quality of soils, (ii)
any evidence of ground water or surface water
problems, (iii) the depth and quality of any fill, (iv)
the overall slope of the site, and (v) the weight that
any proposed structure will impose on Ihe slope;
(3) Require, if a proposed site and improvements are
in a location that may have mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)
hazards, that
(i) a site investigation and further review be made by
persons qualified in geology and soils engineering,
(ii) the proposed grading, excavations, new
construction, and substantial improvements are
adequately designed and protected against mudslide
(i.e. , mudflow) damages, (iii) the proposed grading,
excavations, new construction and substantial
improvements do nol aggravate the existing hazard
by creating either on-site or off-site disturbances, and
(iv) drainage, planting, watering, and maintenance be
such as not to endanger slope stability,
(b) When the Administrator has delineated Zone M
on the community's FIRM, the community shall:
(1) Meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section; and
(2) Adopt and enforce a grading ordinance or
regulation in accordance with data supplied by the
Administrator which (i) regulates the location of
foundation systems and utility systems of new
construction and substantial improvements, (ii)
regulates the location, drainage and maintenance of
all excavations, cuts and fills and planted slopes, (iii)
provides special requirements for protective measures
including but not necessarily iimited to retaining
walls, buttress fills, sub-drains, diverter terraces,
benchings, etc ., and (iv) requires engineering
drawings and specifications to be submitted for all
corrective measures, accompanied by supporting soils
engineering and geology reports . Guidance may be
obtained from Ihe provisions ofthe 1973 edition and
any subsequent edition of the Uniform Building
Code, sections 7001 Ihrough 7006, and 7008 through
7015. The Uniform Building Code is published by
the International Conference of Building Officials, 50
South Los Robles, Pasadena, California 91101 .
[41 FR 46975. Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44
FR 31177, May 31 , 1979, as amended al 48 FR
44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8.
1984]
§ 60.5 Flood plain management criteria for flood-
related erosion-prone areas;
The Administrator will provide the data upon which
flood plain management regulations for flood-related
erosion-prone areas shall be based. If the
Administrator has nol provided sufficient data to
furnish a basis for these regulations in a particular
community, the community shall obtain, review, and
reasonably utilize data available from other Federal.
State or other sources, pending receipt of data from
the Administrator. However, when special flood-
related erosion hazard area designations have been
furnished by the Administrator they shall apply . The
symbols defining such special flood-related erosion
hazard designations are set forth in Sec. 64. 3 of this
subchapter. In al! cases the minimum requiremenis
governing the adequacy of the flood plain
managemenl regulations for flood-related erosion-
prone areas adopled by a particular community
depend on the amount of technical dala provided io
NFIP Regulations E-22
Page 59
001103
the community by the Administrator. Minimum
standards for communities are as follows:
(a) When the Adminislrator has not yet identified any
area within the community as having special flood-
related erosion hazards, bui the community has
indicated the presence of such hazards by submitting
an application to participate in the Program, the
community shall
(1) Require the issuance of a permit for all proposed
construction, or other deveiopment in the area of
flood-related erosion hazard, as il is known to the
community;
(2) Require review of each permit application to
determine whether the proposed site alterations and
improvements will be reasonably safe from flood-
related erosion and will not cause flood-related
erosion hazards or otherwise aggravate the existing
flood-related erosion hazard; and
(3) If a proposed improvement is found to be in the
path of flood-related erosion or to increase the
erosion hazard, require the improvement to be
relocated or adequate protective measures to be taken
which will not aggravate the existing erosion hazard .
(b) When the Administrator has delineated Zone E on
the community's FIRM, the community shall
(1) Meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section; and
(2) Require a setback for ail new development from
the ocean, lake, bay, riverfront or other body of
water, to create a safety buffer consisting of a natural
vegetative or contour strip. This buffer will be
designated by the Administrator according to the
flood-related erosion hazard and erosion rate, in
conjunction with the anticipated "useful life" of
structures, and depending upon the geologic,
hydrologic, topographic and climatic characteristics
ofthe community's land. The buffer may be used for
suitable open space purposes, such as for agricultural,
forestry, outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat areas,
and for other activities using temporary and portable
structures oniy .
[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44
FR 31177, May 31 , 1979, as amended at 48 FR
44552, Sept 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8,
1984]
§ 60.6 Variances an d exceptions.
(a) The Administrator does not set forth absolute
criteria for granting variances from the criteria set
forth in Sec.. 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5 . The issuance ofa
variance is for flood plain management purposes
only. Insurance premium rates are determined by
statute according to actuarial risk and will not be
modified by the granting of a variance. The
community, after examining the applicant's
hardships, shall approve or disapprove a request.
While the granting of variances generally is iimited to
a lot size less than one-half acre (as set forth in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section), deviations from that
limitation may occur. However, as the lot size
increases beyond one-half acre, the technical
justification required for issuing a variance increases.
The Administrator may review a community's
findings justifying the granting of variances, and if
that review indicates a pattern inconsisient with the
objectives of sound flood plain management, the
Administrator may take appropriate action under Sec.
59-24(b) of this subchapter. Variances may be issued
for the repair or rehabilitation of historic slructures
upon a determination that the proposed repair or
rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's
continued designation as a historic structure and the
variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the
historic character and design of the structure.
Procedures for the granting of variances by a
community are as follows:
(1) Variances shall not be issued by a community
within any designated regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result;
(2) Variances may be issued by a community for new
construction and subslantial improvements to be
erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size
contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing
structures constructed below the base flood level, in
conformance with the procedures of paragraphs (a)
(3), (4), (5) and (6) of this section;
(3) Variances shall only be issued by a community
upon (i) a showing of good and suffic ient cause, (ii) a
determination that failure to grant the variance would
result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and
(iii) a determination that the granting of a variance
will not result in increased flood heights, additional
threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense,
create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of
the public, or conflic t with existing local laws or
ordinances;
(4) Variances shall only be issued upon a
determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary, considering the fiood hazard, to afford
relief;
NFIP Regulations
E-23
Page 60
001104
(5) A community shall notify the applicant in writing
over die signature of a community official that (i) the
issuance ofa variance to construct a structure below
the base flood level will result in increased premium
rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25
for $100 of insurance coverage and (ii) such
construclion below the base flood level increases
risks to life and property . Such notification shall be
maintained with a record of all variance actions as
required in paragraph (aX6) of this section; and
(6) A community shall (i) maintain a record of all
variance actions, including justification for their
issuance, and (ii) report such variances issued in its
annual or biennial report submitted to the
Administrator.
(7) Variances may be issued by a community for new
construction and substantial improvements and for
other development necessary for the conduct of a
functionally dependent use provided that (i) the
criteria of paragraphs (a)(1) through (aX4) of this
section are met, and (ii) the structure or other
development is protected by methods that minimize
fiood damages during the base flood and create no
additional threats to public safety .
(bXI) The requirement that , each flood-prone,
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)-prone, and flood-related
erosion prone community must adopt and submit
adequate fiood plain management regulations as a
condition of inilial and continued flood insurance
eligibility is statutory and cannot be waived, and such
regulations shall be adopted by a community within
the time periods specified in Sec. 60.3, 60.4 or Sec.
60.5. However, certain exceptions from the standards
contained in this subpart may be permitted where the
Administrator recogn izes that, because of
extraordinary circumstances, local conditions may
render the application of certain standards the cause
for severe hardship and gross inequity for a particular
community. Consequently, a community proposing
the adoption of flood plain management regulations
which vary from the standards set forth in Sec. 60.3,
60.4, or Sec. 60.5, shall explain, in writing to the
Administrator the nature and extent of and the
reasons for the exception request and shall include
sufficient supporting economic, environmental,
topographic, hydrologic, and other scientific and
technical data, and data with respect to the impact on
public safety and the environment.
(2) The Adminislrator shall prepare a Special
Environmental Clearance to determine whether the
proposal for an exception under paragraph (bXI) of
this section will have significant impact on the human
environment. The decision whether an Environmental
Impact Statement or other environmental document
will be prepared, will be made in accordance with the
procedures set out in 44 CFR part 10. Ninety or more
days may be required for an environmental quality
clearance if the proposed exception will have
significant impact on the human environment thereby
requiring an EIS.
(c) A community may propose flood plain
managemenl measures which adopt standards for
fioodproofed residential basements below the base
flood level in zones Al-30, AH, AO. and AE which
are not subject to tidal flooding. Nothwithstanding
the requirements of paragraph
(b) of this section the Administrator may approve the
proposal provided that:
(I ) The community has demonstrated thai areas of
special fiood hazard in which basements will be
permitted are subject to shallow and low velocity
flooding and lhat there is adequate flood warning
lime to ensure that all residents are notified of
impending floods. For the purposes of this paragraph
flood characteristics musl include:
(i) Flood depths that are five feet or less for
developable lots that are contiguous to land above the
base flood ievel and three feet or less for other lots;
(ii) Flood velocities that are five feet per second or
less; and(iii) Flood warning times that are 12 hours or
greater. Flood warning times of two hours or greater
may be approved if the community demonstrates that
it has a flood warning system and emergency pian in
operation that is adequate to ensure safe evacuation
of fiood plain residents.
(2) The community has adopted flood plain
management measures that requ i re that new
construction and substantial improvements of
residential structures with basements in zones Al-30,
AH, AO, and AE shall:
(i) Be designed and built so that any basemenl area,
together with attendant utilities and sanitary facilities
below the fioodproofed design level, is watertight
with walls that are impermeable to the passage of
water wilhout human intervention. Basement walis
shall be built with the capacity lo resist hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy
resulting from flooding lo the fioodproofed design
level, and shall be designed so that minimal damage
will occur from floods that exceed that level. The
fioodproofed design level shall be an elevation one
foot above the level of the base flood where the
difference between the base flood and the 500-year
flood is three feet or less and two feet above the level
NFIP Regulations
E-24
Page 61
001105
ofthe base flood where the difference is greater than
three feet.
(ii) Have the lop ofthe floor of any basement area no
lower than five feet below the elevation of the base
flood;
iii) Have the area surrounding the structure on all
sides filled to or above the elevation of the base
flood. Fill must be compacted with slopes protected
by vegetative cover;
(iv) Have a registered professional engineer or
architect develop or review the building's structural
design, specifications, and plans, including
consideration of the depth, velocity, and duration of
flooding and type and permeability of soils at the
building site, and certify that the basement design and -
methods of construction proposed are in accordance
with accepted standards of practice for meeting the
provisions of this paragraph;
(v) Be inspected by the building inspector or other
authorized representative ofthe community to verify
that the structure is built according to its design and
those provisions of this section which are verifiable .
[41 FR 46975, Oct 26, 1976 . Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31 , 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44543
and 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984;
50 FR 36025, Sept. 4, 1985; 51 FR 30308, Aug. 25,
1986; 54 FR 33550, Aug. 15, 1989]
§ 60.7 Revisions of criteria for flood plain
management regulations.
From time to time part 60 may be revised as
experience is acquired under the Program and new
information becomes available. Communities will be
given six months from the effective date of any new
regulation to revise their fiood plain management
regulations to comply with any such changes.
§60.8 Definitions.
The definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter
are applicable to this part.
Subpart B—Requirements for State Fiood Plain
Management Regulations
§60.11 Purpose of this s ubpa r t
(a) A State is considered a "community" pursuant to
Sec. 59.1 of this subchapter; and, accordingly, the
Act provides that fiood insurance shall not be sold or
renewed under the Program unless a community has
adopted adequate flood plain management regulations
consistent with criteria established by the
Administrator .
(b) This subpart sets forth the flood plain
management criteria required for State-owned
properties located within special hazard areas
identified by the Administrator. A State shall satisfy
such criteria as a condition to the purchase of a
Standard Flood Insurance Policy for a State-owned
structure or its conlents, or as a condition to the
approval by the Administrator, pursuant to part 75 of
this subchapter, of ils plan of self-insurance.
[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976 . Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44552,
Sept 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
§ 60.12 Fiood plain management criteria for
State-owned properties in special hazard areas.
(a) The State shall comply with the minimum flood
plain management criteria set forth in Sec.Sec. 60.3,
60.4, and 60.5 . A State either shall;
(J) Comply with the flood plain managemenl
requirements of all local communities partic ipating in
the program in which State-owned properties are
localed; or(2) Establish and enforce flood plain
management regulations which, at a minimum,
satisfy the criteria sel forth in Sec. 60.3, 60.4, and
60.5 .
(b) The procedures by which a stale govemmenl
adopts and administers flood plain managemenl
regulations satisfying the criteria set forth in Sec.
60.3, 60.4 and 60.5 may vary from the procedures by
which local governments satisfy the criteria.
(c) If any State-owned property is localed in a non-
participating local community, then the State shall
comply with the requirements of paragraph (aX2) of
this section for the property .
§ Se c 60.13 Noncompliance.
If a State fails to submit adequate flood plain
management regulations applicable to State-owned
properties pursuant to Sec. 60.12 within six months
of the effective date of this regulation, or fails to
adequately enforce such regulations, the State shall
be subject to suspensive action pursuant to Sec.
59.24. Where the State fails to adequately enforce ils
flood plain managemenl regulations, the
Administrator shall conduct a hearing before
initiating such suspensive action.
[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976 . Redesignated at 44
FR 31177, May 31,197 9 , as amended at 48 FR
44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8,
1984]
NFIP Regulations
E-25
Page 62
001106
Subpart C—Additional Considerations in
Managing Flood-Prone, Mudslide (i.e. , Mudflow)-
Prone and Flood-Related Erosion-Prone Areas
§6 02 1 Purpose of this subpart.
The purpose of this subpart is to encourage the
formation and adoption of overall comprehensive
management plans for flood-prone, mudslide (i.e.,
mudflow)-prone and flood-related erosion-prone
areas. While adoption by a community of the
standards in this subpart Is not mandatory, the
community shall completely evaluate these standards.
§ 60.22 Planning considerations for flood-prone
areas.
(a) The flood plain management regulations adopted
by a community for flood-prone areas should:
(1) Permit only that -development of flood-prone
areas which (i) is appropriate in light of the
probability of flood damage and the need to reduce
flood losses, (ii) is an acceptable social and economic
use of the land in relation to the hazards involved,
and (iii) does not increase the danger to human life;
(2) Prohibit nonessential or improper installation of
public utilities and public facilities in flood-prone
areas.
(b) In formulating community deveiopment goais
after the occurrence of a fiood disaster, each
community shall consider—
(1) Preservation of the flood-prone areas for open
space purposes;
(2) Relocation of occupants away from flood-prone
areas;
(3) Acquisition of land or land development rights for
public purposes consistent with a policy of
minimization of future property losses;
(4) Acquisition of frequently flood-damaged
stmctures;
(c) In formulating community development goals and
in adopting flood plain management regulations, each
community shall consider at least the following
factors—
(1) Human safety;
(2) Diversion of developmenl to areas safe from
floodmg in light ofthe need to reduce fiood damages
and in light of the need to prevent environmentally
incompatible fiood plain use;
(3) Full disclosure lo all prospective and interested
parties (including but not limited to purchasers and
renters) that
(i) certain slructures are located within flood-prone
areas,
(ii) variances have been granted for certain structures
located within flood-prone areas, and
(iii) premium rates appiied to new structures built at
elevations beiow the base fiood substantially increase
as the elevation decreases;
(4) Adverse effects of flood plain development on
existing development;
(5) Encouragement of fioodproofing to reduce flood
damage;
(6) Fiood warning and emergency preparedness
plans;
(7) Provision for alternative vehicular access and
escape routes when normal routes are blocked or
destroyed by flooding:
(8) Establishment of minimum fioodproofing and
access requirements for schools, hospitals, nursing
homes, orphanages, penal institutions, fire stations,
police stations, communications centers, water and
sewage pumping stations, and other public or quasi-
public facilities a!read
v
located in the flood-prone
area, to enable them to withstand flood damage, and
to facilitate emergency operations;
(9) Improvement of local drainage to control
increased runoff that might increase the danger of
flooding to other properties;
(10) Coordination of plans with neighboring
community's flood plain management programs;
(11) The requirement lhat all new construction and
substantial improvements in areas subject lo
subsidence be elevated above the base fiood level
equal to expected subsidence for at least a ten year
period;
(12) For riverine areas, requiring subdividers lo
furnish delineations for floodways before approving a
subdivision;
(13) Prohibition of any alteration or relocation o f a
watercourse, except as part of an. overall drainage
basin plan. In the event of an overall drainage basin
plan, provide that the flood canying capacity within
the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse is
maintained;
(14) Requirement of setbacks for new construction
within Zones Vl-30, VE, and V on a communirv's
FIRM;
(15) Requirement of additional elevation above the
base flood level for all new construclion and
substantial improvements within Zones Al-30, AE,
Vl-30, and VE on the community's FIRM to proieci
against such occurrences as wave wash and floating
NFIP Regulations
E-26
Page 63
001107
debris, to provide an added margin of safety against
fioods having a magnitude greater than the base
flood, or to compensate for future urban
development;
(16) Requirement of consistency between state,
regional and locai comprehensive plans and flood
plain management programs;
(17) Requirement of pilings or columns rather than
fill, for the elevation of structures wilhin flood-prone
areas, in order to maintain the storage capacity of the
fiood plain and to minimize the potential for negative
impacts to sensitive ecological areas;
(18) Prohibition, within any floodway or coastal high
hazard area, of plants or facilities in which hazardous
substances are manufactured.
(19) Requirement that a plan for evacuating residents
of all manufactured home parks or subdivisions
located within flood prone areas be developed and
filed with and approved by appropriate community
emergency management authorities. [41 FR 46975,
Oct. 26, 1976 . Redesignated at 44 FR31177 , May 31,
1979, as amended at 50 FR 36025, Sept 4, 1985; 54
FR 40284, Sept. 29, 1989]
§ 60.23 Planning considerations for mud slide
(Le., mudnow)-prone areas.
The planning process for communities identified
under part 65 of this subchapter as containing Zone
M, or which indicate in their applications for fiood
insurance pursuant to Sec. 59.22 of this subchapter
that they have mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) areas, should
include—
(a) The existence and extent of the hazard;
(fa) The potential effects of inappropriate hillside
development, including
(1) Loss of life and personal injuries, and
(2) Public and private property losses, costs,
liabilities, and exposures resulting from potential
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) hazards;
(c) The means, of avoiding the hazard including the
(I) availability of land which is not mudslide (i.e. ,
mudflow)-prone and the feasibility of developing
such land instead of further encroaching upon
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) areas, (2) possibility of
public acquisition of land, easements, and
development rights to assure the proper development
of hillsides, and
(3) advisability of preserving mudslide (i.e.,
mudflow) areas as open space;
(d) The means of adjusting to the hazard, including
: the (1) establishment by ordinance of site exploration,
investigation, design, grading, construction, filing,
compacting, foundation, sewerage, drainage,
subdrainage, planting, inspection and maintenance
standards and requirements that promote proper land
use, and
(2) provision for proper drainage and subdrainage on
public property and the location of public utilities and
service facilities, such as sewer, water, gas and
electrical systems and streets in a manner designed to
minimize exposure lo mudslide (i.e., mudflow)
hazards and prevent their aggravation;
(e) Coordination of land use, sewer, and drainage
regulations and ordinances with fire prevention, flood
plain, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow), soil, land, and water
regulation in neighboring communities;
(f) Planning subdivisions and other developments in
such a manner as to avoid exposure to mudslide (i.e.,
mudflow) hazards and the control of public facility
and utility extension to discourage inappropriate
development;
(g) Public facility location and design requirements
with higher site stability and access standards for
schools, hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages,
correctional and other residential institutions, fire and
police stations, communication centers, electric
power transformers and substations, waler and sewer
pumping stations and any other public or quasi-public
institutions located in the mudslide (i.e., mudflow)
area to enable them to withstand mudslide (i.e. .
mudflow) damage and to facilitate emergency
operations; and
(h) Provision for emergencies, including:
(1) Warning, evacuation, abatement, and access
procedures in the event of mudslide (i.e., mudflow),
(2) Enactment of public measures and initiation of
private procedures to limit danger and damage from
continued or future mudslides (i.e. , mudflow),
(3) Fire prevention procedures in the event of the
rupture of gas or electrical distribution systems by
mudslides,
(4) Provisions to avoid contamination of water
conduits or deterioration of slope stability by the
rupture of such systems,
(5) Similar provisions for sewers which in the event
of rupture pose both health and site stability hazards
and
(6) Provisions for alternative vehicular access and
escape routes when normal routes are blocked or
destroyed by mudslides (i.e., mudflow);
(i) The means for assuring consistency between state,
areawide, and local comprehensive plans with the
plans developed for mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)-prone
areas;
NFIP Regulations
E-27
Page 64
«ionos
(j) Deterring the nonessential installation of public
utilities and public facilities in mudslide (i.e. ,
mudfiow)-prone areas .
§ 60.24 Planning considerations for flood-related
erosion-prone areas.
The pianning process for communities identified
under part 65 of this subchapter as containing Zone E
or which indicate in their applications for flood
insurance coverage pursuant to Sec.
59.22 of this subchapter that they have flood-related
erosion areas should include—
(a) The importance of directing future developments
to areas not exposed lo flood-related erosion;
(b) The possibility of reserving flood-related erosion-
prone areas for open space purposes;
(c) The coordination of all planning for the flood-
related erosion-prone areas with planning al the Slate
and Regional levels, and with pianning at the level of
neighboring communities;
(d) Preventive action in E zones, including setbacks,
shore protection works, relocating structures in the
path of flood-related erosion;, and community
acquisition of flood-related erosion-prone properties
for public purposes;
(e) Consistency of plans for flood-related erosion-
prone areas with comprehensive plans at the state,
regional and local levels.
§ 60.25 Designation, duties, an d responsibilities of
State Coordinating Agencies.
(a) States are encouraged to demonstrate a
commitment to the minimum flood plain
management criteria set forth in Sec.Sec. 60.3, 60.4,
and 60.5 as evidenced by the designation of an
agency of State government to be responsible for
coordinating the Program aspects of flood plain
management in the State .
(b) State participation in furthering the objectives of
this part shall include maintaining capability to
perform the appropriate duties and responsibilities as
follows:
(1) Enact, whenever necessary, legislation enabling
counties and municipalities to regulate development
widiin flood-prone areas;
(2) Encourage and assist communities in qualifying
for partic ipation in the Program;
(3) Guide and assist county and municipal public
bodies and agencies in developing, implementing,
and maintaining local flood plain management
.regulations;
(4) Provide local governments and the general public
NFIP Regulations
with Program information on the coordination of
local activities with Federal and State requirements
for managing flood-prone areas;
(5) Assist communities in disseminating information
on minimum elevation requirements for development
within flood-prone areas;
(6) Assist in the delineation of riverine and coastal
flood-prone areas, whenever possible, and provide all
relevant technical information to the Administrator;
(7) Recommend priorities for Federal flood plain
management activities in relation to the needs of
county and municipal localities within the State;
(8) Provide notification to the Administrator in the
event of apparent irreconcilable differences between
a community's local flood plain management program
and the minimum requirements ofthe Program;
(9) Establish minimum State flood plain management
regulatory standards consistent with those established
in this part and in conformance with other Federal
and Stale environmental and water pollution
standards for the prevention of pollution during
periods of flooding;
(10) Assure coordination and consistencv of flood
plain management activities with other State,
areawide, and. locai planning and enforcement
agencies;
(11) Assist in the identification and implementation
of flood hazard mitigation recommendations which
are consistent with the minimum flood plain
management criteria for the Program;
(12) Participate in flood plain management training
opportunities and other flood hazard preparedness
programs whenever practicable.
(c) Other duties and responsibilities, which may be
deemed appropriate by the State and which are to be
officially designated as being conducted in the
capacity of the State Coordinating Agency for the
Program, may be carried oul with prior notification of
the Administrator.
(d) For States which have demonstrated a
commitment to and experience in application ofthe
minimum fiood plain management criteria set forth in
Sec. 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5 as evidenced by the
establishment and implementation of programs which
substantially encompass the activities described in
paragraphs (a), (fa), and (c) of this section, the
Administrator shall take the foregoing into account
when:
(1) Considering State recommendations prior to
implementing Program activities affecting State
communities;
(2) Considering State approval or certifications of
E-28
Page 65
i i .y
local flood plain management regulations as meeting
the requirements of this part.
[51 FR 30309, Aug . 25, 1986]
§ 60.26 Local coordination.
(a) Local flood plain, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and
flood-related erosion area management, forecasting,
emergency preparedness, and damage abatement
programs should be coordinated with relevant
Federal, State, and regional programs;
(fa) A community adopting flood plain management
regulations pursuant to these criteria should
coordinate with the appropriate State agency lo
promote public acceptance and use of effective flood
plain, mudslide, (i.e., mudflow) and flood-related
erosion regulations;
(c) A community should notify adjacent communities
prior to substantial commercial developments and
large subdivisions to be undertaken in areas having
special flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and/or flood-
related erosion hazards.
PART 65 - IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING
OF SPECIAL HAZARD AREAS-
Table of Contents
Sec.
65.1 Purpose of part
65.2 Definitions.
65.3 Requirement to submit new technical data .
65.4 Right to submit new technical data.
65.5 Revision to special hazard area boundaries with
no change to base flood elevation determinations.
65.6 Revision of base flood elevation determinations.
65.7 Floodway revisions.
65.8 Review of proposed projects.
65.9 Review and response by the Administrator.
65.10 Mapping of areas protected by levee systems.
65.11 Evaluation of sand dunes in mapping coastal
flood hazard areas.
65.12 Revision of flood insurance rate maps to reflect
base flood elevations caused by proposed
encroachments.
65.13 Mapping and map revisions for areas subject to
alluvial fan flooding.
65.14 Remapping of areas for which local flood
protection systems no longer provide base flood
protection.
65.15 List of communities submitting new technical
data.
65.16 Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form
and Instructions.
65.17 Review of determinations.
Aulhority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq,; Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978
Comp. , p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31 , 1979, 44 FR
19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.
§65.1 Purpose of pa r t
42 U.S.C . 4104 authorizes the Director lo identify
and publish information with respect to all areas
within the United Stales having special flood,
mudslide (i.e. , mudflow) and flood-related erosion
hazards. The purpose of this part is to outline the
steps a community needs lo lake in order to assist the
Agency's effort in providing up-to-date identification
and publication, in the form ofthe maps described in
part 64, on special flood, mudslide (i.e. , mudflow)
and flood-related erosion hazards.
[48 FR 28278, June 21, 1983]
§ 65.2 Definitions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part, the
definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter are
applicable to this pan.
(b) For the purpose of this part, a certification by a
registered professional engineer or other party does
not constitute a warranty or guarantee of
performance, expressed or implied. Certification of
data is a statement that the data is accurate to the best
ofthe certifier's knowledge. Certification of analyses
is a statement that the analyses have been performed
correctly and in accordance with sound engineering
practices. Certification of structural works is a
statement lhal the works are designed in accordance
with sound engineering practices lo provide
protection from the base flood. Certification of "as
built" conditions is a statement that the structure^)
has been built according to the plans being certified,
is in place, and is frilly functioning.
(c) For the purposes of this part, "reasonably safe
from flooding" means base flood waters will not
inundate the land or damage structures to be removed
from the SFHA and that any subsurface waters
related to the base flood will not damage existing or
proposed buildings.
151 FR 30313, Aug. 25, 1986, as amended at 66 FR
22442, May 4, 2001]
§ 653 Requirement to submit new technical data.
A community's base flood elevations may increase or
decrease resulting efrom physical changes affecting
flooding conditions. As soon as practicable, but not
later than six months after the date such information
NFIP Regulations
E-29
Page 66
001110
becomes available, a community shall notify the
Administrator ofthe changes by submitting technical
or scientific data in accordance with this part. Such a
submission is necessary so that upon confirmation of
those physical changes affecting flooding conditions,
risk premium rales and flood plain managemenl
requirements will be based upon current data .
[51 FR303I3, Aug. 25, 1986]
§ 65.4 Right to submit new technical data.
(a) A community has a right to request changes to
any of the information shown on an effective map
that does not impact flood plain or floodway
delineations or base flood elevations, such . as
community boundary changes, labeling, or
pianimetric details. Such a submission shall include
appropriate supporting documentation in accordance
with this part and may be submitted at any time.
(b) All requests for changes to effective maps, other
than those Initiated by FEMA, must be made in
writing by the Chief Executive Officer of the
community (CEO) or an offic ial designated by the
CEO. Should the CEO refuse to submit such a
request on behalf of another party, FEMA will agree
to review it only if written evidence is provided
indicating the CEO or designee has been requested to
do so.(c) Requests for changes to effective Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Fiood Boundary
and Floodway Maps (FBFMs) are subject to the cost
recovery procedures described in 44 CFR part 72. As
indicated in part 72, revisions requested lo correct
mapping errors or errors in the Flood Insurance Study
analysis are not to be subject to the cost-recovery
procedures.
[51 FR 30313, Aug. 25, 1986, as amended at 57 FR
29038, June 30, 1992; 63 FR 46331, Aug. 30, 1996;
62 FR 5736, Feb. 6, 1997]
Editorial Note: For references to FR pages showing
lists of eligible communities, see the List of CFR
Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids
section ofthe printed volume and on GPO Access.
§ 65.5 Revision to special hazard area boundaries
with no change to base flood elevation
determinations.
(a) Data requirements for topographic changes. In
many areas of special flood hazard (excluding. V
zones and floodways) it may be feasible to elevate
areas with engineered earthen fill above the base
flood elevation- Scientific and technical information
to support a request lo gain exclusion from an area of
special flood hazard of a structure or parcel of land
that has been elevated by the placement of engineered
earthen fill will include the following:
(1) A copy ofthe recorded deed., indicating the legal
description of the property and the official
recordation information (deed book volume and page
number) and bearing the seal of the appropriate
recordation offic ial (e.g. , County Clerk or Recorder
of Deeds).
(2) If the property is recorded on a plat map, a copy
ofthe recorded plat indicating both the location ofthe
property and the official recordation information (plat
book volume and page number) and bearing the seal
ofthe appropriate recordation offic ial. If the property
is not recorded on a plat map, FEMA requires copies
of the tax map or other suitable maps to help in
locating the property accurately.
(3) A topographic map or other infonnation
indicating existing ground elevations and the date of
fill. FEMA's determination to exclude a legally
defined parcel of land or a structure from the area of
special flood hazard will be based upon a comparison
of the base flood elevations tc the lowest ground
elevation ofthe parcel or the lowest adjacent grade to
the structure. If the lowest ground elevation of the
entire legally defined parcel of land or the lowest
adjacent grade to the structure are at or above the
elevations ofthe base flood, FEMA will exclude the
parcel and/or structure from the area of special flood
hazard .
(4) Written assurance by the participating community
lhat they have complied with the appropriaie
minimum floodplain management requirements under
Sec. 60.3 . This includes the requirements that:
(i) Existing residential structures built in the SFHA
have their lowest floor elevated to or above die base
flood;
(ii) The participating community has determined that
the iand and any existing or proposed structures to be
removed from the SFHA are "reasonably safe from
flooding", and that they have on file, available upon
request by FEMA, all supporting analyses and
documentation used to make that determination;
(iii) The participating community has issued permits
for all existing and proposed construction or other
development; and
(iv) All necessary permits have been received from
those governmental agencies where approval is
required by Federal, State, or local law.
(5) If the community cannot assure thai it has
complied with the appropriate minimum floodplain
management requirements under Sec. 60.3, of this
NFIP Regulations
E-30
Page 67
OL-
1111
s"^ chapter, the map revision request will be deferred
until the community remedies all violations to the
maximum extent possible through coordination with
FEMA. Once the remedies are in place, and the
community assures that the iand and structures are
"reasonably safe from flooding," we will process a
revision to Ihe SFHA using the criteria set forth in
Sec. 65.5(a). The community must maintain on file,
and make available upon request by FEMA, all
supporting analyses and documentation used, in
determining that the iand or structures are
"reasonably safe from flooding."
(6) Data to substantiate the base flood elevation. If
we complete a Flood Insurance Sludy (F1S), we will
use those data to substantiate the base flood
elevation . Otherwise, the community may submit
data provided by an authoritative source, such as the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological
Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
State and locai water resource departments, or
technical data prepared and certified by a registered
professional engineer . If base flood elevations have
not previously been established, we may also request
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations.
(7) A revision of floodplain delineations based on fill
must demonstrate that any such fill does not result in
a floodway encroachment.
(b) New topographic data . A community may also
follow the procedures described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of this seciion to request a map revision
when no physical changes have occurred in the area
of special flood hazard, when no fill has been placed,
and when the natural ground elevations are at or
above the elevations of the base flood, where new
topographic maps are more detailed or more accurate
than the current map.
(c) Certification requirements. A registered
professional engineer or licensed land surveyor must
certify the items required in paragraphs (a)(3) and (6)
and (b) of this section. Such certifications are subject
to die provisions under Sec. 65.2.
(d) Submission procedures. Submit all requests to the
appropriate address serving the community's
geographic area or to the FEMA Headquarters Office
in Washington, DC.
[66 FR 22442, May 4, 2001J
§ 65.6 Revision of base flood elevation
determinations.
(a) General conditions and data requirements.
,(]) The supporting data must include all the
information FEMA needs to review and evaluate the
request This may involve the requestor's performing
new hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and
delineation of new flood plain boundaries and
floodways, as necessary.
(2) To avoid discominuiiies between the revised and
unrevised flood data, the necessary hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses submitted by the map revision
requestor must be extensive enough to ensure that a
logical transition can be shown between the revised
flood elevations, flood plain boundaries, and
floodways and those developed previously for areas
not affected by the revision. Unless it is demonstrated
that it would not be appropriate, the revised and
unrevised base flood elevations must match-;within
one-half foot where such transitions occur.
(3) Revisions cannot be made based on the effects of
proposed projects or future conditions. Section 65.8
of this subchapter contains provisions for obtaining
conditional approval of proposed projects that may
effect map changes when they are completed.
(4) The datum and date of releveling of benchmarks,
if any, to which the elevations are referenced must be
indicated.
(5) Maps will not be revised when discharges change
as a result ofthe use of an alternative methodology or
dala for computing flood discharges unless the
change is statistically significant as measured by a
confidence limits analysis of the new discharge
estimates.
(6) Any computer program used to perform
hydrologic or hydraulic analyses in support of a flood
insurance map revision must meet all ofthe following
criteria:
(i) It must have been reviewed and accepted by a
governmental agency responsible for the
implementation of programs for flood control and/or
the regulation of flood plain lands. For computer
programs adopted by non-Federal agencies,
certification by a responsible agency offic ial must be
provided which states thai the program has been
reviewed, tested, and accepted by that agency for
purposes of design of flood control structures or flood
plain land use regulation.
(ii) It must be well-documented including source
codes and user's manuals.
(iii) It must be available to FEMA and all present and
future parties impacted by flood insurance mapping
developed or amended through the use of the
program. For programs not generally available from a
Federal agency, the source code and user's manuals
must be sent.lo FEMA free of charge, with fully-
documented permission from the owner that FEMA
NFIP Regulations
E-31
Page 68
001112
may release the code and user's manuals to such
impacted parties.
(7) A revised hydrologic analysis for flooding
sources with established base flood elevations musl
include evaluation o f the same recurrence imerval(s)
studied in th e effective F1S, such as the 10-, 50- ,
100-, and 500-year flood discharges.
(8) A revised hydraulic analysis for a flooding source
with established base flood elevations must include
evaluation ofthe same recurrence interval(s) studied
in the effective FIS, such as the 10-, 50- , 100-, an d
500-year flood elevations, and of the floodway.
Unless the basis o f th e request is th e use of an
alternative hydraulic methodology or the requestor
can demonstrate that the data ofthe original hydraulic
computer model is unavailable or its use is
inappropriate, the analysis shall be made using th e
same hydraulic computer model used to develop the
base flood elevations shown on the effective Flood
Insurance Rale M ap an d updated to show present
conditions in the flood plain . Copies ofthe input an d
output data from the original an d revised hydraulic
g n n l v c c ch* * ! ! b e s u b m i t t e d .
(9) A hydrologic or hydraulic analysis for a flooding
source without established base flood elevations may
be performed for only Ihe 1 OOyear flood.
(10) A revision o f flood plain delineations based on
topographic Changes must demonstrate lhat any
topographic changes have not resulted in a floodway
encroachment
(11) Delineations of flood plain boundaries for a
flooding source with established base flood
elevations must provide both the 100- and 500year
flood plain boundaries. For flooding sources without
established base flood elevations, oniy 100-year flood
plain boundaries need be submitted. These
boundaries should be shown on a topographic map of
suitable scale and contour interval .
(12) If a community or other party seeks recognition
from FEMA, on its FHBM or FIRM, that an altered
or relocated portion of a watercourse provides
protection from, or mitigates potential hazards of, th e
base flood, the Adminislrator may request specific
documentation from the community certifying thai,
and describing how, the provisions o f Sec. 60.3(b)(7)
of this subchapter will be met for the particular
watercourse involved This documentation, which
may be in th e form of a written statement from th e
Community Chief Executive Officer, an ordinance, or
other legislative action, shall describe the nature of.
Jthe maintenance activities to be performed, th e
frequency with which they will be perfonned, and th e
title of the local community official who will be
responsible for assuring that the maintenance
activities are accomplished.
(13) Notwithstanding any other provisions o f Sec.
65.6, a community may submit in lieu o f the
documentation specified in Sec. 65.6(a)( 12).
certification by a regislered professional engineer that
the projeel has been designed lo retain its flood
carrying capacity without periodic maintenance.
(14) The participating community must provide
written assurance that they have complied with the
appropriate minimum floodplain management
requirements under Sec. 60.3 o f this chapter. This
includes the requirements that:
(i) Existing residential structures built in the SFHA
have their lowest floor elevated to or above the base
flood;
(ii) The partic ipating community has determined that
the land an d any existing or proposed structures to be
removed from the SFHA are "reasonably safe from
flooding." an d lhat they have on file, available upon
request by FEMA, all supporting analyses an d
c4 n f ~i imont!>tTrtn i iCi^H tr \ maL 'i * thi t rio-te
· n i r mr , ·
(iii) The participating community has issued permits
for all existing an d proposed construction or other
development; and
(iv) All necessary permits have been received from
those governmental agencies where approval is
required by Federal, Slate, or local law .
(15) If the community cannot assure that it has
complied with th e appropriate minimum floodplain
management requirements under Sec . 6 0 .3 , of this
chapter the map revision request will be deferred
until Ihe community remedies all violations to the
maximum extern possible through coordination with
FEMA. Once the remedies a re in place, and th e
community assures that the land and structures are
"reasonably safe from flooding," we will process a
revision to the SFHA using the criteria set forth under
Sec. 65.6 . The community musl maintain on file, and
make available upon request by FEMA, all
supporting analyses and documentation used in
determining thai the land or structures are
"reasonably safe from flooding."
(b) Data requirements for correcting m ap errors. To
correct errors in the original flood analysis, technical
data submissions shall include th e following;
(1) Data identifying mathematical errors .
(2) Data identifying measurement errors and
providing correct measurements.
(c) Data requirements for changed physical
conditions. Revisions based on the effects of physical
NFIP Regulations E-32
Page 69
001113
changes that have occurred in the flood plain shall
include:
(I) Changes affecting hydrologic conditions. The
following data must be submitted:
(i) General description of the changes (e.g., dam,
diversion channel, or detention basin).
(ii) Construction plans for as-built conditions, if
applicable.
(iii) New hydrologic analysis accounting for the
effects ofthe changes.
(iv) New hydraulic analysis and profiles using the
new flood discharge values resulting from the
hydrologic analysis.
(v) Revised delineations ofthe flood plain boundaries
and floodway.
(2) Changes affecting hydraulic conditions. The
following data shall be submitted:
(i) General description of the changes (e.g.,
channelization or new bridge, culvert, or levee).
(ii) Construction plans for as-built conditions.
(iii) New hydraulic analysis and flood elevation
profiles accounting for the effects ofthe changes and
using the original flood discharge values upon which
the original map is based.
(iv) Revised delineations of the flood plain
boundaries and floodway.
(3) Changes involving topographic conditions. The
following data shall be submitted:
(i) General description of the changes (e.g., grading
or filling).
(ii) New topographic information, such as spol
elevations, cross sections grading plans, or contour
maps.
(iii) Revised delineations of Ihe flood plain
boundaries and, if necessary, floodway.
(d) Data requiremenis for incorporating improved
data. Requests for revisions based on the use of
improved hydrologic, hydraulic, or topographic data
shall include the following dala:
(1) Data that are believed to be better than those used
in the original analysis (such as additional years of
stream gage data).
(2) Documentation ofthe source ofthe data.
(3) Explanation as to why the use ofthe new data will
improve the results ofthe original analysis.
(4) Revised hydrologic analysis where hydrologic
data are being incorporated.
(5) Revised hydraulic analysis and flood elevation
profiles where new hydrologic or hydraulic dala are
being incorporated.
(6) Revised delineations ofthe flood plain boundaries
and floodway where new hydrologic, hydraulic, or
topographic data are being incorporated,
(e) Data requirements for incorporating improved
methods. Requests for revisions based on the use of
improved hydrologic or hydraulic methodology shall
include the following data:
(1) New hydrologic analysis when an allernative
hydrologic methodology is being proposed.
(2) New hydraulic analysis and flood elevation
profiles when an alternative hyrologic or hydraulic
methodology is being proposed.
(3) Explanation as to why the alternative
methodologies are superior to the original
methodologies.
(4) Revised delineations ofthe flood plain boundaries
and floodway based on the new analysis(es) .
(f) Certification requirements. Alf analysis and dala
submitted by the requester shall be certified by a
registered professional' engineer or licensed land
surveyor, as appropriate, subject to the definition of
"certification" given at Sec. 65.2 of this subchapter.
(g) Submission procedures. All requests shall be
submitted to the FEMA Regional Office servicing the
community's geographic area or tn the FEMA
Headquarters Office in Washington, DC, and shall be
accompanied by the appropriate payment, in
accordance with.44 CFR part 72.
[51 FR 30314, Aug. 25, 1986, as amended at 53 FR
16279, May 6, 1988; 54 FR 33550, Aug. 15, 1989; 61
FR 46331, Aug. 30, 1996; 62 FR 5736, Feb. 6, 1997;
66 FR 22442, May.4, 2001]
§ 65.7 Floodway revisions.
(a) General. Floodway data is developed as part of
FEMA Flood Insurance Studies and is utilized by
communities to select and adopt floodways as part of
the flood plain management program required by Sec.
60.3 of this subchapter. When it has been determined
by a community that no practicable alternatives exist
lo revising the boundaries of its previously adopted
floodway, the procedures below shall be followed.
(b) Data requirements when base flood elevation
changes are requested. When a floodway revision is
requested in association with a change to base flood
elevations, the data requirements of Sec. 65.6 shall
also be applicable. In addition, the following
documentation shall be submitted:
(I) Copy of a public notice distributed by the
community staring the community's intent to revise
the floodway or a statement by the community that it
has notified all affected property owners and affected
adjacent jurisdictions.
NFIP Regulations £-33
Page 70
001114
/ "- (2) Copy of a letter notifying the appropriate State
agency of the floodway revision when the State has
jurisdiction over the floodway or ils adoption by
communities partic ipating in the NFIP.
(3)-Documentation of the approval of the revised
floodway by the appropriate State agency (for
communities where the State has jurisdiction over the
floodway or its adoption by communities
partic ipating in the NFIP).
(4) Engineering analysis for the revised floodway, as
described below:
(i) The floodway analysis must be performed using
the hydraulic computer model used to determine the
proposed base flood elevations.
(ii) The floodway limits must be set so that neither
the effective base flood elevations nor the proposed
base flood elevations if less than the effective base
flood elevations, are increased by more than the
amount specified under Sec. 60.3 (d)(2). Copies of
the input and output data from the original and
modified computer models must be submitted.
(5) Delineation ofthe revised floodway on the same
topographic map used for Ihe delineation of the
revised flood boundaries.
(c) Data requirements for changes not associated with
base flood elevation changes. The following data
shall be submitted:
(1) Items described in paragraphs (b) (!) through (3)
of this section must be submined.
(2) Engineering analysis for the revised floodway, as
described below:
(i) The original hydraulic computer model used to
develop the established base flood elevations must be
modified to include all encroachments that have
occurred in the flood plain since the existing
floodway was developed. If the original hydraulic
computer model is not available, an alternate
hydraulic computer model may be used provided the
alternate model has been calibrated so as to reproduce
the original water surface profile of the original
hydraulic computer model . The alternate model must
be then modified to include all encroachments that
have occurred since the existing floodway was
developed.
(ii) The floodway analysis must be performed with
the modified computer model using the desired
floodway limits .
(iii) The floodway limits must be set so that
combined effects of the past encroachments and the
new floodway limits do not increase the effective
i ibase fiood elevations by more than the amount
specified in Sec. 60.3(dX2). Copies of the input and
output data from the original and modified computer
models must be submitted .
(3) Delineation ofthe revised floodway on a copy of
the effective NFIP map and a suitable topographic
map.
(d) Certification requirements. All analyses submitted
shall be certified by a registered professional
engineer. All topographic dala shall be certified by a
registered professional engineer or licensed land
surveyor. Certifications are subject to the definition
given at Sec. 65.2 of this subchapter.
(e) Submission procedures. All requests that involve
changes to floodways shall be submitted to the
appropriate FEMA Regional Office servicing the
community's geographic area.
[51 FR 30315, Aug. 25, 1986]
§ 65. 8 Review of proposed projects.
A community, or an individual through the
community, may request FEMA's comments on
whether a proposed project, if buill as proposed,
would justify a map revision . FEMA's comments will
be issued in the form of a letter, termed a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision, in accordance with 44 CFR
part 72. The data required to support such requests
. are the same as those required for final revisions
under Sec.Sec. 65.5, 65.6, and 65.7, except as-built
certification is not required. All such requests shall be
submitted to the FEMA Headquarters Office in
Washington, DC, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate payment, in accordance with 44 CFR part
72 . [62 FR 5736, Feb. 6, 1997]
§ 65. 9 Review and response by the Adminis trator.
If any questions or problems arise during review,
FEMA will consult the Chief Executive Officer ofthe
community (CEO), the community official
designated by the CEO, and/or the requester for
resolution. Upon receipt of a revision request, the
Adminislrator shall mail an acknowledgment of
receipt of such request lo the CEO. Within 90 days of
receiving the request with all necessary information,
the Administrator shall notify the CEO of one or
more ofthe following:
(a) The effective map(s) shall not be modified;
(b) The base flood elevations on the effective FIRM
shall be modified and new base fiood elevations shall
be established under the provisions of part 67 of this
subchapter;
(c) The changes requested are approved and the
map(s) amended by Letler of Map Revision (LOMR);
NFIP Regulations
E-34
Page 71
001115
(d) The changes requested are approved and a revised
map(s) will be printed and distributed;
(e) The changes requested are not of such a
significant nature as to warrant a reissuance or
revision of the flood insurance study or maps
and will be deferred until such time as a
significant change occurs;
(f) An additional 90 days is required lo evaluate
the scientific or technical data submitted; or
(g) Addiiional data are required to support the
revision request.
(h) The required payment has not been
submitted in accordance with 44 CFR part 72.
no review will be conducted and no
determination will be issued until payment is
received.
[51 FR 30315, Aug. 25, 1986; 61 FR 46331,
Aug. 30, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 5736, Feb.
6, 1997]
§ 65.10 Mapping of areas protected by levee
systems.
(a) General. For purposes of the NFIP, FEMA will
only recognize in its flood hazard and risk mapping
effort those levee systems that meet and continue to
meet, minimum design, operation, and maintenance
standards that are consistent with the level of
protection sought through the comprehensive flood
plain managemenl criteria established by Sec. 60.3 of
this subchapter. Accordingly, this section describes
the types of information FEMA needs to recognize,
on NFIP maps, that a levee system provides ,
protection from the base flood. This information must
be supplied to FEMA by the community or other
party seeking recognition of such a levee system at
the time a flood risk study or restudy is conducted,
when a map revision under the provisions of part 65
of this subchapter is sought based on a levee system,
and upon request by the Administrator during the
review of previously recognized structures. The
FEMA review will be for the sole purpose of
establishing appropriate risk zone determinations for
NFIP maps and shall not constitute a determination
by FEMA as to how a structure or system will
perform in a flood event
(b) Design criteria. For levees lo be recognized by
FEMA, evidence that adequate design and operation
and maintenance systems are in place to provide
reasonable assurance that protection from the base
flood exists must be provided. The following
(requirements must be met;
(1) Freeboard, (i) Riverine levees must provide a
minimum freeboard of three feet above the water-
surface level ofthe base flood. An additional one foot
above the minimum is required within 100 feet in
either side of structures (such as bridges) riverward of
the levee or wherever the flow is constricted. An
additional one-half foot above the minimum at the
upstream end of the levee, tapering to not less than
the minimum al the downstream end ofthe levee, is
also required.
(ii) Occasionally, exceptions to the minimum riverine
freeboard requirement described in paragraph
(bXI)(i) of this section, may be approved.
Appropriate engineering analyses demonstrating
adequate protection with a lesser freeboard musl be
submitted to support a request for such an exception.
The material presented must evaluate the uncertainty
in the estimated base flood elevation profile and
include, but not necessarily be limited to an
assessment of statistical confidence limits ofthe 100-
year discharge; changes in stage-discharge
relationships; and the sources, potential, and
magnitude of debris, sediment, and ice accumulation.
Il must be also shown that the levee will remain
structurally stable during the base flood when such
additional loading considerations are imposed. Under
no circumstances will freeboard of less than two feet
be accepted.
(hi) For coastal levees, the freeboard must be
established at one foot above the height of the one
percent wave or the maximum wave runup
(whichever is greater) associated with the I OOyear
Stillwater surge elevation at the site,
(iv) Occasionally, exceptions lo the minimum coastal
levee freeboard requirement described in paragraph
(b)(I)(m) of this section, may be approved.
Appropriate engineering analyses demonstrating
adequate protection with a lesser freeboard must be
submitted to support a request for such an exception.
Tlie material presented must evaluate the uncertainty
in the estimated base flood loading conditions.
Particular emphasis musl be placed on the effects of
wave attack and overtopping on the stability of the
levee. Under no circumstances, however, will a
freeboard of less than two feet above the 1 OOyear
Stillwater surge elevation be accepted.
(2) Closures. All openings musl be provided with
closure devices that are structural parts ofthe system
during operation and design according to sound
engineering practice.
(3) Embankment protection. Engineering analyses
must be submitted that demonstrate that no
NFIP Regulations E-35
Page 72
OOU
16
appreciable erosion ofthe levee embankment can be
expected during the base flood, as a result of either
currents or waves, and that anticipated erosion will
not result in failure of the levee embankment or
foundation directly or indirectly through reduction of
the seepage path and subsequent instability. The
factors to be addressed in such analyses include, but
are not limited to: Expected flow velocities
(especially in constricted areas); expected wind and
wave action; ice loading; impact of debris; slope
protection techniques; duration of flooding at various
stages and velocities; embankment and foundation
materials; levee alignment, bends, and transitions;
and levee side slopes.
(4) Embankment and foundation stability.
Engineering analyses that evaluate levee embankment
stability must be submitted. The analyses provided
shall evaluate expected seepage during loading
conditions associated with the base flood and shall
demonstrate that seepage into or through the levee
foundation and embankment will not jeopardize
embankment or foundation stability. An allernative
analysis demonstrating that the levee is designed and
constructed for stability against loading conditions
for Case IV as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) manual, "Design and Construction
of Levees" (EM i 110-2-1913, Chapter 6, Seciion II),
may be used . The factors that shall be addressed in
the analyses include: Depth of flooding, duration of
flooding, embankment geometry and length of
seepage path at critical locations, embankment and
foundation materials, embankment. compaction,
penetrations, other design factors affecting seepage
(such as drainage layers), and other design factors
affecting embankment and foundation stability (such
as berms) .
(5) Settlement. Engineering analyses must be
submitted that assess the potential and magnitude of
future losses of freeboard as a result of levee
settlement and demonstrate that freeboard will be
maintained within the minimum standards set forth in
paragraph (bXI) of this section. This analysis must
address embankment loads, compressibility of
embankment soils, compressibility of foundation
soils, age of the levee system, and construction
compaction methods. In addition, detailed settlement
analysis using procedures such as those described in
the COE manual, "Soil Mechanics Design-
Settlement Analysis" (EM 1100-2-1904) must be
submitted .
(6) Interior drainage. An analysis must be submitted
that identifies the source(s) of such flooding, the
extent ofthe flooded area, and, if the average depth is
greater than one foot, the water-surface elevation(s)
ofthe base fiood. This analysis must be based on the
joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and
the capacity of facilities (such as drainage lines and
pumps) for evacuating interior floodwaters.
(7) Other design criteria. In unique situations, such as
those where the levee system has relatively high
vulnerability, FEMA may require that other design
criteria and analyses be submitted to show that ihe
levees provide adequate protection. In such
situations, sound engineering practice will be the
standard on which FEMA will base its
determinations. FEMA will also provide the rationale
for requiring this additional information,
(c) Operation plans and criteria. For a levee system to
be recognized, Ihe operational criteria must be as
described below. All closure devices or mechanical
systems for internal drainage, whether manual or
automatic, must be operated in accordance with an
offic ially adopted operation manual, a copy of which
must be provided to FEMA by the operator when
levee or drainage system recognition is being sought
or when the manual for a previously recognized
system is revised in any manner . All operations must
be under the jurisdiction of a Federal or State agency,
an agency created by Federal or State law, or an
agency ofa community participating in the NFIP.
(1) Closures. Operation plans for closures musl
include the following:
(i) Documentation ofthe flood warning system, under
the jurisdiction of Federal, State, or community
officials, that will be used to trigger emergency
operation activities and demonstration that sufficienl
flood warning time exists for the completed operation
of all closure structures, including necessary sealing,
before floodwaters each the base ofthe closure,
(ii) A formal plan of operation including specific
actions and assignments of responsibility by
individual name or title .
(iii) Provisions for periodic operation, at not less than
one-year intervals, ofthe closure structure for testing
and training purposes .
(2) interior drainage systems, interior drainage
systems associated with levee systems usually
include storage areas, gravity outlets, pumping
stations, or a combination thereof. These drainage
systems will be recognized by FEMA on NFIP maps
for fiood protection purposes only if the following
minimum criteria are included in the operation plan;
(i) Documentation ofthe flood warning system, under
the jurisdiction of Federal, Slate, or community
NFIP Regulations
E-36
Page 73
001117
officials, that will be used to trigger emergency
operation activities and demonstration that-sufficient
flood warning time exists to permii activation of
mechanized portions ofthe drainage system.
(ii) A formal pian of operation including specific
actions and assignments of responsibility by
individual name or title.
(iii) Provision for manual backup for the activation of
automatic systems.
(iv) Provisions for periodic inspection of interior
drainage systems and periodic operation of any
mechanized ponions for testing and training
purposes. No more than one year shall elapse
between either the inspections or the operations.
(3) Other operation plans and criteria. Other
operating plans and criteria may be required by
FEMA to ensure that adequate protection is provided
in specific situations. In such cases, sound emergency
management practice will be the standard upon which
FEMA determinations will be based,
(d) Maintenance plans and criteria. For levee systems
to be recognized as providing protection from the
base fiood, the maintenance criteria must be as
described herein. Levee systems must be maintained
in accordance with an officially adopted maintenance
plan, and a copy of this plan must be provided to
FEMA by the owner of the levee system when
recognition is being sought or when the plan for a
previously recognized system is revised in any
manner. All maintenance activities must be under the
jurisdiction of a Federal or State agency, an agency
created by Federal or State law, or an agency of a
community participating in the NFIP that must
assume ultimate responsibility for maintenance. This
plan must document the formal procedure that
ensures that the stability, height, and overall integrity
of the levee and its associated structures and systems
are maintained. At a minimum, maintenance plans
shall specify the maintenance activities to be
performed, the frequency of their performance, and
the person by name or title responsible for their
performance.
(e) Certification requirements. Data submitted to
support that a given levee system complies with the
structural requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)(!)
through (7) of this section must be certified by a
registered professional engineer . Also, certified as-
built plans of the levee musl be submitted.
Certifications are subject to the definition given al
Sec. 65.2 of this subchapter. In lieu of these structural
requirements, a Federal agency with responsibility
for levee design may certify that the levee has been
NFIP Regulations
adequately designed and constructed lo provide
protection against the base flood.
[51 FR 30316, Aug. 25, 1986]
§ 65.11 Evaluation of sand dunes in mapping
coastal flood hazard areas .
(a) General conditions. For purposes of the NFIP,
FEMA will consider storm-induced dune erosion
potential in its determination of coastal flood hazards
and risk mapping efforts . The criterion to be used in
the evaluation of dune erosion will apply to primary
frontal dunes as defined in Sec. 59.1, but does not
apply to artificially designed and constructed dunes
that are nol well-established with long-standing
vegetative cover, such as the placement of sand
materials in a dune-like formation,
(b) Evaluation criterion. Primary frontal dunes will
not be considered as effective barriers to base flood
storm surges and associated wave action where the
cross-sectional area of the primary frontal dune, as
measured perpendicular to the shoreline and above
the 100-year Stillwater flood elevation and seaward of
the dune crest, is equal to, or less than, 540 square
feet.
(c) Exceptions. Exceptions to the evaluation criterion
may be granted where it can be demonstrated through
authoritative historical documentation that the
primary frontal dunes at a specific site withstood
previous base fiood storm surges and associated wave
action.
[53 FR 16279, May 6. 1988]
§ 65.12 Revision of flood insurance rate maps to
reflect base flood elevations caused by proposed
encroachments .
(a) When a comm unity proposes to perm it
encroachments upon the flood plain when a
regulatory floodway has not been adopted or to
permii encroachments upon an adopted regulatory
floodway which will cause base fiood elevation
increases in excess of those permitted under
paragraphs (c)(10) or (dX3) of Sec. 60.3 of this
subchapter, the community shall apply to the
Administrator for conditional approval of such action
prior to permitting the encroachments to occur and
shall submit the following as part of its application:
(!) A request for conditional approval of map change
and the appropriate initial fee as specified by Sec.
72. 3 of this subchapter or a request for exemption
from fees as specified by Sec. 72.5 of this subchapter,
whichever is appropriate;
(2) An evaluation of alternatives which would nol
E-37
Page 74
001U8
result in a base flood elevation increase above that
permitted under paragraphs (c)(10) or (d)(3) of Sec.
60.3 of this subchapter demonstrating why these
alternatives are not feasible;
(3) Documentation of individual legal notice to all
impacted property owners within and outside ofthe
community, explaining the impact of the proposed
action on their property .
(4) Concurrence of the Chief Executive Officer of
any other communities impacted by the proposed
actions;
(5) Certification that no structures are localed in areas
which would be impacted by the increased base fiood
elevation;
(6) A request for revision of base flood elevation
determination according to the provisions of Sec.
65.6 of this part; .
(7) A request for floodway revision in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. 65. 7 of this part;
(b) Upon receipt of the Administrator's conditional
approval of map change and prior to approving the
proposed encroachments, a community shall provide
evidence to the Administrator of the adoption of
flood plain managemenl ordinances incorporating the
increased base flood elevations and/or revised
floodway reflecting the post-project condition.
(c) Upon completion of the proposed encroachments,
a community shall provide as-built certifications in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 65. 3 of this
part. The Administrator will initiate a final map
revision upon receipt of such certifications in
accordance with part 67 of this subchapter.
[53 FR 16279, May 6, 1988]
§ 65.13 Mapping and ma p revisions for areas
subject to alluvial fan flooding.
This section describes the procedures to be followed
and the types of information FEMA needs to
recognize on a NFIP map that a structural flood
control measure provides protection from the base
flood in an area subject to alluvial fan flooding . This
infonnation must be supplied to FEMA by the
community or other party seeking recognition of such
a flood control measure at the time a flood risk study
or restudy is conducted, when a map revision under
the provisions of part 65 of this subchapter is sought,
and upon request by the Administrator during the
review of previously recognized flood control
measures . The FEMA review will be for the sole
purpose of establishing appropriate risk zone
determinations for NFIP maps and shall not
constitute a determination by FEMA as to how the
flood conirol measure will perform in a flood event,
(a) The applicable provisions of Sec. 65,2, 65.3, 65.4 .
65.6, 65.8 and 65.10 shall also apply to FIRM
revisions involving alluvial fan flooding.
(b) The provisions of Sec. 65. 5 regarding map
revisions based on fill and the provisions of part 70 of
this , chapter shall not apply to FIRM revisions
involving alluvial fan flooding. In general, elevations
of a parcel of land or a structure by fill or other
means, will not serve as a basis for removing areas
subject to alluvial fan flooding from an area of
special food hazards.
(c) FEMA will credit on NFIP maps only major
structural flood control measures whose design and
construction are supported by sound engineering
analyses which demonstraie lhat the measures will
effectively eliminate alluvial fan fiood hazards from
the area protected by such measures. The provided
analyses must include, but are not necessarily limited
to. the following:
(1) Engineering analyses that quantify the discharges
and volumes of water, debris, and sediment
movement associated with the flood that has a one-
percent probability of being exceeded in any year at
the apex under current watershed conditions and
under potential adverse conditions (e.g., deforestation
of the watershed by fire). The potential for debris
flow and sediment movement must be assessed using
an engineering method acceptable to FEMA, The
assessment should consider the characteristics and
ayailafaility of sediment in the drainage basin above
the apex and on the alluvial fan.
(2) Engineering analyses showing thai the measures
will accommodate the estimated peak discharges and
volumes of water, debris, and sediment, as
determined in accordance with paragraph (cXl) of
this section, and will withstand the associated
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces.
(3) Engineering analyses showing thai the measures
have been designed to withstand the potential erosion
and scour associated with estimated discharges.
(4) Engineering analyses or evidence showing that
the measures will provide protection from hazards
associated with the possible relocation of flow paths
from other parts ofthe fan.
(5) Engineering analyses that assess the effect of the
project on flood hazards, including depth and velocity
of floodwaters and scour and sediment deposition, on
other areas ofthe fan.
NFIP Regulations
E-38
Page 75
001119
(6) Engineering analyses demonstrating that flooding
from sources other than the fan apex, including local
runoff, is either insignificant or has been accounted
for in the design.
(d) Coordination. FEMA will recognize measures
that are adequately designed and constructed,
provided that: evidence is submitted to show that the
impact of the measures on flood hazards in all areas
ofthe fan (including those nol protected by the flood
control measures), and the design and maintenance
requirements bf the measures, were reviewed and
approved fay the impacted communities, and also by
State and local agencies that have jurisdiction over
flood control activities.
(e) Operation and maintenance plans and criteria. The
requirements for operation and maintenance of flood
control measures on areas subject to alluvial fan
flooding shall be those specified under Sec. 65.10,
paragraphs (c) and (d), when applicable.
(f) Certification requirements. Data submitted to
support that a given flood control measure complies
with the requirements sel forth in paragraphs (c) (1)
through (6) of this section must be certified by a
registered professional engineer . Also, certified as-
built plans of the flood control measures must be
submitted. Certifications are subject to the definition
given at Sec. 65.2.
(Approved by the Office of Managemenl and Budget
under control number 3067-0147)
[54FR33551, Aug. 15, 1989]
§ 65.14 Remapping of areas for which local flood
protection systems no longer provide base flood
protection.
(a) General . (1) This section describes the procedures
to follow and the types of information FEMA
requires to designate flood control restoration zones .
A community may be eligible to apply for this zone
designation if the Administrator determines that it is
engaged in the process of restoring a flood protection
system that was:
(i) Constructed using Federal funds;
(ii) Recognized as providing base flood protection on
the community's effective FIRM; and
(iii) Decertified by a Federal agency responsible for
flood protection design or construction.
(2) Where the Administrator determines that a
community is in the process of restoring its flood
protection system lo provide base fiood protection, a
FIRM will be prepared that designates the temporary
flood hazard areas as a flood control restoration zone
(Zone AR). Existing special flood hazard areas
shown on the community's effective FIRM that are
further inundated by Zone AR flooding shall be
designated as a "dual" fiood insurance rate zone .
Zone AR/AE or AR/AH with Zone AR base flood
elevations, and AE or AH with base flood elevations
and Zone AR/AO with Zone AR base flood
elevations and Zone AO with flood depths, or Zone
AR/A with Zone AR base flood elevations and Zone
A without base flood elevations,
(b) Limitations. A community may have a flood
control restoration zone designation only once while
restoring a fiood protection system.
This limitation does not preclude future flood control
restoration zone designations should a fully restored,
certified, and accredited system become decertified
for a second or subsequent time.
(1) A community that receives Federal funds for the
purpose of designing or constructing, or both, the
restoration projeel must complete restoration or meet
· the requirements of 44 CFR
61.12 within a specified period, not to exceed a
maximum of 10 years from the date of submittal of
the community's application for designation of a
flood control restoration zone.
(2) A community that does not receive Federal funds
for the purpose of constructing the restoration project
must complete restoration within a specified period,
not lo exceed a maximum of 5 years from the date of
submittal of the community's application for
designation ofa fiood control restoration zone. Such
a community is not eligible for the provisions of
Sec.61.I2. The designated restoration period may not
be extended beyond the maximum allowable under
this limitation .
(c) Exclusions. The provisions of these regulations do
not apply in a coastal high hazard area as defined in
44 CFR 59.1, including areas that would be subject to
coastal high hazards as a result of the decertification
of a flood protection system shown on the
community's effective FIRM as providing base flood
protection.
(d) Effective dale for risk premium rates. The
effective date for any risk premium rates established
for Zone AR shall be the effective date ofthe revised
FIRM showing Zone AR designations,
(e) Application and submittal requirements for
designation of a flood control restoration zone. A
community must submit a written request to the
Administrator, signed by the community's Chief
Executive Officer, for a fioodpiain designation as a
flood control restoration zone. The request musl
include a legislative action by the community
NFIP Regulations
)
E-39
Page 76
001120
requesting the designation. The Administrator will
not initiate any action to designate flood control
restoration zones without receipt of the formal
request from the community that complies with all
requirements of this section. The Administrator
reserves the right io request additional information
from the community to support or further document
the community's formal request for designation of a
flood control restoration zone, if deemed necessary.
(1) At a minimum, the request from a community that
receives Federal funds for the purpose of designing,
constructing, or both, the restoration project must
include:
(i) A statement whether, to the best ofthe knowledge
ofthe community's Chief Executive Officer, the^flood
protection system is currently the subjecl matter of
litigation before any Federal, State or local court or
administrative agency, and if so, the purpose of that
litigation;
(it) A statement whether the community has
previously requested a determination with respect to
the same subjecl matter from the Administrator, and
if so 2 statement that details the dis'xjsition of such
previous request;
(iii) A statement from the community and
certification by a Federal agency responsible for
flood protection design or construction that the
existing flood control system shown on the effective
FIRM was originally built using Federal funds, that it
no longer provides base flood protection, but that it
continues to provide protection from the flood having
at least a 3percent chance of occurrence during any
given year;
(iv) An official map of the community or legal
description, with supporting documentation, that the
community will adopt as part of its flood plain
management measures, which designates developed
areas as defined in Sec.59.1 and as further defined in
Sec.60.3(f)-
(v) A restoration plan to return the system to a level
of base flood protection. At a minimum, this plan
must:
(A) List all importanl projeel elements, such as
acquisition of permits, approvals, and contracts and
construction schedules of planned features;
(B) Identify antic ipated start and completion dates for
each element, as well as significant milestones and
dates;
(C) Identify the date on which "as built" drawings
and certification for the completed restoration project
will be submitted. This date must provide for a
restoration period not to exceed the maximum
allowable restoration period for the flood protection
system, or;
(D) Identify the date on which the community will
submit a request for a finding of adequate progress
thai meets all requirements of Sec.61.I2. This date
may not exceed the maximum allowable restoration-
period for the flood protection system;
(vi) A stalemenl identifying the local project sponsor
responsible for restoration of the flood protection
system;
(vii) A copy of a study, performed by a Federal
agency responsible for flood protection design or
construclion in consultation with the local project
sponsor, which demonstrates a Federal interest in
restoration of the system and which deems that the
flood protection system is restorable to a level of base
flood protection.
(viii) A joint statement from the Federal agency
responsible for flood protection design or
construction involved in restoration of the flood
protection system and the local project sponsor
certifying that the design and construction of the
flood ccntrci system involves Federal funds, and thai
the restoration of the flood protection system will
provide base flood protection;
(2)'At a minimum, the request from a community that
receives no Federal funds for the purpose of
constructing the restoration project must:
(i) Meet the requirements of Sec.65.14(eXlXi)
through (iv);
(ii) include a restoration plan to return the system to a
level of base fiood protection. At a minimum, this
plan must:
(A) List all important project elements, such as
acquisition of permits, approvals, and contracts and
construction schedules of planned features;
(B) Identify anticipated start and completion dates for
each element, as well as significant milestones and
dates; and
(C) Identify the date on which "as built" drawings
and certification for the completed restoration project
will be submitted. This date must provide for a
restoration period not io exceed the maximum
allowable restoration period for the flood protection
system;
(iii) Include a statement identifying the local.agency
responsible for restoration, of the flood protection
system;
(iv) Include a copy ofa study, certified by registered
Professional Engineer, that demonstrates that the
flood protection system is restorable to provide
protection from the base flood;
NFIP Regulations
E-40
Page 77
001121
(v) Include a statement from the local agency
responsible for restoration of the flood protection
system certifying that the restored flood protection
system will meel the applicable requirements of Part
65; and
(vi) Include a statement from the local agency
responsible for restoration of the flood protection
system that identifies the source of funds for the
purpose of constructing the restoration project and a
percentage of the total funds contributed by each
source. The statement must demonstraie, al a
minimum, that 100 percent of the total financial
project cost ofthe completed flood protection system
has been appropriated.
(f) Review and response by the Administrator. The
review and response by the Administrator shall be in
accordance with procedures specified in Sec. 65.9 .
(g) Requirements for maintaining designation of a
flood control restoration zone. During the restoration
period, the community and the cosl-sharing Federal
agency, if any, musl certify annually to the FEMA
Regional Office having jurisdiction that the
restoration will be completed in accordance with the
restoration plan within the time period specified by
the plan. In addition, the community and the cost-
sharing Federal agency, if any, will update the
restoration plan and will identify any permitting or
construction problems that will delay the project
completion from the restoration plan previously
submitted to the Administrator. The FEMA Regional
Office having jurisdiction will make an annual
assessment and recommendation to the Administrator
as lo the viability of the restoration plan and will
conduct periodic on-sile inspections of the flood
protection system under restoration.
(h) Procedures for removing flood control restoration
zone designation due lo adequate progress or
complete restoration of the flood protection system.
At any time during the restoration period;
(1) A community that receives Federal funds for the
purpose of designing, constructing, or both, the
restoration project shall provide written evidence of
certification from a Federal agency having flood
protection design or construction responsibility that
the necessary improvements have been completed
and that the system has been restored to provide
protection from the base flood, or submit a request
for a finding of adequate progress that meets all
requirements of Sec.61.12. If the Adminislrator
determines that adequate progress has been made,
FEMA will revise the zone designation from a flood
control restoration zone designation to Zone A99.
(2) After the improvements have been completed,
certified by a Federal agency as providing base flood
protection, and reviewed by FEMA, FEMA will
revise the FIRM to reflect the completed fiood
control system.
(3) A community that receives no Federal funds for
the purpose of conslructing the restoration project
must provide written evidence thai the restored fiood
protection system meets the requirements of Part 65 .
A community that receives no Federal funds for the
purpose of conslructing the restoration project is nol
eligible for a finding of adequate progress under
Sec.61.12.
(4) After the improvements have been completed and
reviewed by FEMA, FEMA will revise the FIRM to
reflect the completed flood protection syslem.
(i) Procedures for removing flood conirol resioration
zone designation due to noncompliance with the
restoration schedule or as a result o f a finding that
satisfactory progress is not being made to complete
the restoration, Al any time during the restoration
period, should the Administrator determine that the
restoration will not be completed in accordance with
the time frame specified in the restoration plan, or
that satisfactory progress is not being made to restore
the fiood protection system to provide complete flood
protection in accordance with the restoration plan, the
Adminislrator shall notify the community and the
responsible Federal agency, in writing, of the
determination, the reasons for that determination, and
thai the FIRM will be revised to remove the flood
control restoration zone designation. Within thirty
(30) days of such notice, the community may submit
written information thai provides assurance that the
restoration will be completed in accordance with the
time frame specified in the restoration plan, or that
satisfactory progress is being made lo restore
complete protection in accordance with the
restoration plan, or that, with reasonable certainty, the
restoration will be completed within the maximum
aliowable restoration period. On the basis of this
information the Administrator may suspend the
decision to revise the FIRM lo remove the flood
control restoration zone designation. If the
community does nol submit any information, or if,
based on a review ofthe information submitted, there
is sufficienl cause to find that the restoration will not
be completed as provided for in the restoration plan,
the Administrator shall revise the FIRM, in
accordance with 44 CFR Part 67, and shall remove
the flood control restoration zone designations and
shall redesignate those areas as Zone Al -30, AE, AH,
NFIP Regulations
E-4;
Page 78
001122
AO, or A.
[62 FR 55717, Oct. 27, 1997]
§ 65.15 List of communities submitting new
technical data.
This section provides a cumulative list of
communities where modifications of the base flood
elevation determinations have been made because of
submission of new scientific or technical data . Due to
the need for expediting the modifications, the revised
map is already in effect and the appeal period
commences on or about the effective date of the
modified map . An interim rule, followed by a final
rule, will list the revised map effective dale, local
repository and the name and address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community. The map(s) is
(arc) effective for both flood plain management and
insurance purposes.
[51 FR 30317, Aug. 25, 1986. Redesignated at
53 FR 16279, May 6. 1988, and further
redesignated at 54 FR 33551, Aug. 15, 1989.
Redesignated al 59 FR 53599, Oct. 25, 1994]
Editorial Note: For references lo FR pages showing
lists of eligible communities, see the List of CFR
Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids
section ofthe printed volume and on GPO Access;
§ 65.16 Standard Flood Hazard Determination
Form and Instructions.
(a) Section 528 of the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C . 1365(a)) directs
FEMA to develop a standard form for determining, in
the case of a loan secured by improved real estate or a
mobile home, whether the building or mobile home is
located in an area identified fay the Director as an area
having special flood hazards and in which flood
insurance under this title is available. The purpose of
the form is to determine whether a building or mobile
home is localed within an identified Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA), whether fiood insurance is
required, and whether federal fiood insurance is
available. Use of this form will ensure that required
fiood insurance coverage is purchased for structures
located in an SFHA, and will assist federal entities
for lending regulation in assuring compliance with
these purchase requirements.
(b) The form is available by written request to
Federal Emergency Managemenl Agency, PO Box
2012, Jessup, MD 20794; ask for the Standard Flood
Hazard Determination form. It is also available by
fax-on-demand; call (202) 646-3362, form #23103 .
Finally, the form is available through the Internet at
http://www.fema.gov/nfip/mpurfi.htm.
{63 FR 27857, May 21 , 1998]
§ 65.17 Review of determinations.
This section describes the procedures that shall be
followed and the types of information required by
FEMA to review a determination of whether a
building or manufactured home is located within an
identified Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
(a) General conditions. The borrower and lender of a
loan secured by improved real estate or a
manufactured home may jointly request that FEMA
review a determination that the building or
manufactured home is localed in an identified SFHA.
Such a request must be submitted within 45 days of
the lender's notification lo the borrower that the
building or manufactured home is in the SFHA and
that fiood insurance is required. Such a request must
be submitted jointly by the lender and the borrower
and shall include the required fee and technicai
information related to the buiiding or manufaciured
home. Elevation data will not be considered under the
procedures described in this section,
(b) Data and other requirements. Items required for
FEMA's review of a determination shall include the
following:
(1) Payment ofthe required fee by check or money
order, in U.S. funds, payable to the National Flood
insurance Program;
(2) A request for FEMA's review of the
determination, signed by both the borrower and the
lender;
(3) A copy ofthe lender's notification to the borrower
that the building or manufactured home is in an
SFHA and that fiood insurance is required (the
request for review of the determination must be
postmarked within 45 days of borrower notification);
(4) A completed Standard Flood Hazard
Determination Form for the buiiding or manufactured
home, together with a legible hard copy of all
technical data used in making the determination; and
(5) A copy ofthe effective NFIP map (Flood Hazard
Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood insurance Rate
Map (FIRM)) panel for the community in which the
building or manufactured home is located, with the
building or manufactured home location indicated.
Portions ofthe map panel may be submitted but shall
include the area of the building or manufactured
home in question together with the map panel title
block, including effective date, bar scale, and north
arrow.
NFIP Regulations
E-42
Page 79
001123
(c) Review and response by FEMA. Within 45 days
after receipt of a request to review a determination,
FEMA will notify the applicants in writing of one of
the following:
(1) Request submitted more than 45 days after
borrower notification; no review will be performed
and all materials are being returned;
(2) Insufficient information was received to review
the determination; therefore, the determination stands
until a compiete submittal is received; or
(3) The results of FEMA's review of ihe
determination, which shall include the following:
(i) The name ofthe NFIP community in which the
building or manufactured home is located;
(ii) The property address or other identification ofthe
building or manufactured home to which the
determination applies;
(iii) The NFIP map panel number and effective date
upon which the determination is based;
(iv) A statement indicating whether the building or
manufactured home is within the Special Flood
Hazard Area;
'v"* The time frame during which the
determination is effective.
[60 FR 62218, Dec. 5, 1995]
PART 70-FROCEDURE FOR MAP
CORRECTION
Mapping Deficiencies Unrelated to Community -
Wide Elevation Determinations
Sec.
70.1 Purpose of part.
70.2 Definitions.
7 03 Right to submit technical information .
70.4 Review by the Director.
70.5 Letter of Map Amendment.
70.6 Distribution of Letter of Map Amendment.
70.7 Notice of Letter of Map Amendment.
70.8 Premium refund after Letter of Map
Amendment
70.9 Review of proposed projects.
Authority; 42 U.S.C . 4001 et seq.; Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943. 3 CFR, 1978
Comp. , p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR
19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp. , p. 376 .
§ 70.1 Purpose of part .
The purpose of this part is to provide an
administrative procedure whereby the Administrator
will review the scientific or technical submissions of
ian owner or lessee of property who believes his
property has been inadvertently included in
NFIP Regulations
designated A, AO, A130, AE, AH, A99, AR, AR/AI-
30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, Vl-30,
VE, and V Zones, as a result of the transposition of
the curvilinear line to either street or to other readily
identifiable features. The necessity for this part is due
in part lo the technical difficulty of accurately
delineating the curvilinear line on either an FHBM or
FIRM. These procedures shall not apply when there
has been . any alteration of topography since the
effective date of the first NFIP map (i.e., FHBM or
FIRM) showing the property within an area of special
flood hazard . Appeals in such circumstances are
subject to the provisions of part 65 of this subchapter.
[62 FR 55718, Oct. 27, 1997]
§ 70.2 Definitions.
The definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter
are applicable to this part.
[41 FR 46991, Oct 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR
31!77 ,May31, 1979]
§ 7 03 Right to submit technical information.
(a) Any owner or lessee of property (applicant) who
believes his property has been inadvertently included
in a designated A, AO, Al-30, AE, AH, A99, AR,
AR/AI-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO,
Vl-30, VE, and V Zones on a FHBM or a FIRM,
may submit scientific or technical information to the
Administrator for the Administrator's review.
(b) Scientific and technical information for the
purpose of this part may include, but is not iimited to
the following;
(1) An actual copy ofthe recorded plat map bearing
the sea! of the appropriate recordation offic ial (e.g .
County Clerk, or Recorder of Deeds) indicating the
offic ial recordation and proper citation (Deed or Plat
Book Volume and Page Numbers), or an equivalent
identification where annotation of the deed or plat
book is not the practice.
(2) A topographical map showing (i) ground
elevation contours in relation to the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD) of 1929, (ii) the
total area ofthe property in question, (iii) the location
of the structure or structures located on the property
in question, (iv) the elevation of the lowest adjacent
grade to a structure or strucmres and (v) an indication
of the curvilinear line which represents the area
subject lo inundation by a base flood. The curvilinear
line should be based upon information provided by
any appropriate authoritative source, such as a
Federal Agency, the appropriate slate agency (e.g .
E-43
Page 80
001124
·
%
Department of Water Resources), a County Water
Control District, a County or City Engineer, a Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance
Study, or a determination by a Registered
Professional Engineer
(3) A copy of the FHBM or FIRM indicating the
location ofthe property in question;
(4) A certification by a Registered Professional
Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor that the lowest
grade adjacent to the structure is above the base flood
elevation .
[41 FR 46991, Oct. 26 . 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31 , 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44544
and 44553, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984;
50 FR 36028, Sept. 4, 1985; 51 FR 30317, Aug. 25,
1986; 53 FR 16280, May 6, 1988; 59 FR 53601, Oct.
25, 1994; 62 FR 55719, Oct. 27, 1997]
§ 70.4 Review by the Director.
The Director, after reviewing the scientific or
technical information submitted under the provisions
of Sec. 70.3, shall notify the applicant in writing of
his/her determination within 60 d2
v
£ after we rccei
v
e
the applicant's scientific or technical information thai
we have compared either the ground elevations of an
entire legally defined parcel of land or the elevation
of the lowest adjacent grade lo a structure with the
elevation ofthe base flood and that:
(a) The property is wilhin a designated A, A0, Al-30,
AE, AH, A99, AR, AR/AI-30, AR/AE, AR/AO,
AR/AH, AR/A, VO, Vl-30, VE, or V Zone, and will
state die basis of such determination; or
, (b) The property should not be within a designated
A, A0, Al-30, AE, AH, A99, AR, AR/AI-30,
AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A,V0, V3-30, VE, or
V Zone and that we will modify the FHBM or FIRM
accordingly; or
(c) The property is not within a designated A, A0,
Al-30, AE, AH, A99, AR, AR/AI-30, AR/AE,
AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A,V0, Vl-30, VE, or V Zone
as shown on the FHBM or FIRM and no modification
ofthe FHBM or FIRM is necessary; or(d) We need
an additional 60 days to make a determination.
[66 FR 33900, June 26, 2001 ]
§ 70.5 Letter of Map Amendment.
Upon determining from available scientific or
technical information that a FHBM or a FIRM
requires modification under the provisions of Sec.
70.4(b), the Administrator shall issue a Letter of Map
^Amendment which shall state:
(a) The name ofthe Community to which the map to
be amended was issued;
(b) The number ofthe map;
(c) The identification of the property to be excluded
from a designated A, AO, Al-30, AE, AH, A99, AR_
AR/AI-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO,
Vl-30, VE, or V Zone .
[41 FR 4699!, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44553,
Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984; 50 FR
36028, Sept. 4, 1985; 59 FR 5360!, Oct. 25, 1994; 62
FR 55719, Oct. 27 . 1997]
§ 70.6 Distribution of Letter of Ma p Amendment.
(a) A copy ofthe Letter of Map Amendment shall be
sent to the applicant who submitted scientific or
technical data to the Administraior.
(b) A copy ofthe Letter of Map Amendmenl shall be
sent to the local map repository with instructions thai
it be attached to the map which the Letter of Map
Amendmenl is amending.
(c) A copy ofthe Letter of Map Amendment shall be
sent to the map repository in the state with
instructions that it be attached to the map which it is
amending.
(d) A copy ofthe Letter of Map Amendment will be
sent to any community or governmental unit thai
requests such Letter of Map Amendment.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) A copy ofthe Letter of Map Amendmenl will be
maintained by the Agency in its community case file.
[41 FR 46991, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR
31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44544
and 44553, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
§70.7 Notice of Letter of Ma p Amendment
(a) The Administrator, shall not publish a notice in
the Federal Register that the FIRM for a particular
community has been amended by.letter determination
pursuant to this part unless such amendment includes
alteration or change of base fiood elevations
established pursuant to part 67 . Where no change of
base flood elevations has occurred, the Letter of Map
Amendment provided under Sec. 70.5 and 70.6
serves to inform the parties affected.
(b) [Reserved] Editorial Note: For a list of
communities issued under this section and not carried
in'the CFR see the List of CFR Sections Affected,
which appears in the Finding Aids Section of the
printed volume and on GPO Access.
NFIP Regulations
E-44
Page 81
001125
§ 70.8 Premium refund after Letter of Map
Amendment.
A Standard Fiood insurance Policyholder whose
property has become the subject of a Letter of Map
Amendmenl under this part may cancel the policy
within the current policy year and receive a premium
refund under the conditions set forth in Sec. 62.5 of
ihis subchapter. [41 FR 46991, Ocl. 26, 1976.
Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31,1979]
§70.9 Review of proposed projects.
An individual who proposes to build one or more
structures on a portion of property that may be
included inadvertently in a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) may request FEMA's comments on
whether the proposed slructure(s), if built as
proposed, will be in the SFHA. FEMA's comments
will be issued in the form of a letter, termed a
Conditional Letter of Map Amendment. The data
required lo support such requests are the same as
those required for final Letters of Map Amendment in
accordance with Sec. 70.3, except as-built
certification is not required and the requests shall be
accompanied by the appropriate payment, in
accordance with 44 CFR part 72. All such requests
for CLOMAs shall be submitted to the FEMA
Regional Office servicing the community's
geographic area or to the FEMA Headquarters Office
in Washington, DC.
[62 FR 5736, Feb. 6, 1997]
NFIP Regulations E^5
Page 82
001127
n
o
f EXHIBIT C
Page 83
001129
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA / ^ I II? D CTXT^T
COUNCIL POLICY ^ UKKbN I
SUBJECT: COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
POLICY NO.; 000-01
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 1990
BACKGROUND;
The City Council of The City of San Diego is charged with the responsibility of establishing
municipal policies to guide the various functions ofthe City and, where necessary, to establish
procedures by which functions are performed. Regulatory policies established by the Cily Council
usually are adopted by ordinance and included in the Municipal Code. However, olher policies also
are established which by their nature do not require adoption by ordinance. These policy statements
adopted by resolution ofthe City Council need to be consolidated in a reference document for easy
access.
PURPOSE:
It is the purpose of this policy lo:
1. clearly state and compile policies ofthe City Council not covered by ordinance;
2. provide for the distribution of these policies lo all concerned; and
3. establish procedures for the preparation, distribution and maintenance of Council policies and
the "Council Policy Manual."
POLICY:
1. There is hereby established a "Council Policy Manual'
1
which shall contain all City policy
statements adopled by resolution ofthe City Council.
2. Generally, policy statements in this "Council Policy Manual" will include only such
municipal matters for which the responsibility of decision is placed in the City Council by
virtue ofthe City Charter, the Municipal Code, or specific ordinances and resolutions.
3. All policy statements ofthe City Council shall be prepared in writing and approved by
resolution. Once approved, statements of policy will be reproduced, distributed, and included
in the "Council Policy Manual" accompanied by the resolution number and date of adoption.
4. Each policy statements shall include: a) a brief background description ofthe problem, b) the
purpose of the policy, c) the policy statements, d) other criteria or procedural sections as
required, and e) cross reference notations as to appropriaie provisions in the City Charter,
Municipal Code, Administrative Regulations, etc.
5. The City Clerk shall be responsible for the preparation, continuing maintenance and
distribution ofthe "Council Policy Manual," and additions or deletions thereto.
6. Copies ofthe "Council Policy Manual" shall be distributed to each non-mana tria l depanment
head and to the City Manager and to such of their representatives as they may direct.
7. Copies ofthe "Council Policy Manual" shall be available to the general public at a cost
established by the City Clerk.
8. Council Committees shall annually review the Policy Manual "Table of Conlents" to
determine which, if any, policies need review.
CT-OOO-IH
Page J of2
Page 84
001130
CITY GF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ^ j i p p p x i x
COUNCIL POLICY CUKK t N I
9. Each policy shall be assigned to a "responsible department" and it shall bc the responsibility of
departments so designated lo 3) periodically review their assigned policies, 2) offer
appropriate revisions as necessary, and 3) enter upon any subsequent revisions the cross
reference notations meniioned in Item 4 above.
PROCEDURE:
1. Tbe City Council or any standing commitiee or member thereof, the City Manager,
non-managerial department heads, and City Boards and Commissions may originate draft
policy proposals for.formal consideration by the City' Council.
2. The City Clerk shall be responsible for the assignment of tentative and final policy numbers
and titles to a proposed policy draft. For these purposes, he shall be consulted prior to the
preparation by the originating department ofthe draft policy.
Prior to preparing the draft policy, the originating department will obtain a copy ofthe current
policy from the City Clerk.
3. Drafts of proposed Council policies and amendments lo existing policies shall be processed in
accordance with the provisions ofthe Permanent Rules ofthe Councij. Such drafts shall be
referred lo the appropriate Council Committee for discussion, analysis and preliminary action.
4. Upon approval by the appropriate Council committee, the draft policy shall be delivered to the
City Attorney for preparation ofa resolution of adoption. Such resolution shall be prepared
and processed in accordance with Rule 28 ofthe Permanent Rules ofthe Council., A strike-out
version ofthe draft policy shall be prepared and forwarded with the resolution.
5. Proposed policies will then be presented for Council consideration. If Council approves a
policy and directs revisions, the originating department will make the changes and forward a
final draft and strike-out version to the City Attorney before publication by the City Clerk.
6. After official adoption by the City Council, the City Clerk shall be responsible for duplication
ofthe statement of policy and distribuiion.
7. As required, the Cily Clerk shall update the Table of Contents and Cross Reference in the
"Council Policy Manual."
S. Each July the four Council Committees shall review an updated table of contents to determine
which, if any, policies they wish to review.
HISTORY:
Adopled by Resolution R-169938 03/15/1962
Amended by Resolution R-I91955 10/26/1967
Amended by Resolution R-211429 08/29/1974
Amended by Resolution R-252047 06/16/1980
Amended bv Resolution R-274932 01/08/1990
CP-OOO-OI
Page 2 of2
Page 85
001131
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Office of
The City Attorney
Ciry of San Dieso
May 22, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Citv Attorney
Today's City Council Agenda Item No. 334 - Appeal of Planning
Commission Decision Involving the Stebbins Residence - Request
for Two-Week Continuance.
On today's City Coimcil .Agenda for this afternoon is a scheduled appeal hearing
ofthe Pianning Commission's dscision in approving an application for a Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) and a Site Development Permit.(SDP) for the demolition of
an existing one-story duplex, and the construction of £ new three-story single famii}'
residence, and to allow- for deviation from the regulations for Special Flood Hazard
.Areas, to permit development ofthe residential structure at 7.1 feet below the Base Flood
Elevation where two (2) feet above the Base Fiood Elevation is required.
.As recently as last Friday, ofnciais ofthe Federal Emergency Management
Assncy (FEMA) were offering conflicting positions relative to FEMA's view and
requirements on this construction proposal which includes a below-surface parking
structure, Yesterday, rspressntaxives of FEMA appeared to tentatively resolve their
differing viewnoints; consequently we are undsrrakins additional legal research and
analysis which will be of benefit to the City on this matter. Tne appellants have raised
eighteen (18) anneal issues idsntinsd in the staff repon prepared by the Deveiopment
Services Department; some ofthem arerelatsd to FEMA concerns.
We resnectfolly request a two-week continuance of this .appeal hearing, to the
City Council meeting of June 5. 2007. Tnis will allow the City Attorney's Office rime to
identify and clarify the FEMA-rslated issues, and prepare a legal memorandum for your
information and consideration which will be distributed during the week pnor to the June
5 appeal hearing, Tnis .will allow the City Council the opportunity to consider all ofthe
lesal issues associated with this annsal hearing.
cc: Elizabeth Maland. City Clerk
Bob.Manis. Dev. Sen'. Dent
MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney
Bv: OXKAJ KN^L. XD^QDK^O
Marianne Greene. Denurv Cirv Atiomsv
Page 86
001132
U
THE STEBBINS RESIDENCE PROJECT 51076
APPLICANT RESPONSE TO APPEAL
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW A1-A3
NOTAJ3LE QUOTES FROM THE RECORD B1-B4
APPLICANT'S POINT BY POINT RESPONSE TO APPEAL C1-C9
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT 'INFORMATION FROM APPLICANT REGARDING
FLOODPROOFING ISSUES.... i-iii
OPINION LETTER FROM ENGINEER AND .ARCHITECT
REGARDING FLOOD PROOFING 1-1B
FOR SELF RAISING B.ARRIER AND IA-1L
PROJECT LIST FOR FLOOD BARRIER. .2-5
SLAT SYSTEM FLOOD BARRIER DIAGRAMS 6A-H
ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF SLAT SYSTEM BARRIER. 7-8
ARTICLE REGARDING DRY BASEMENT
CONSTRUCTION IN CORONADO 9-12
SUMP PUMP INFO 13
BASEMENT DRY-PROOFING INFO, SCHEMATICS, MATERIALS 14A-J
FEMA INSTRUCTIONS RE: PLACEMENT OF UTILITIES 15A-H
PHOTO OF RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED OVER UNDERGROUND
PARKING, 20 FEET FROM FLOOD ZONE, ON SAME
SETBACKS IN SAND 100 FEET FROM BEACH 16
PHOTO OF UNDERGROUND COMMERCIAL PARKING
ACROSS STREET FROM OB PIER (APPX. 70C.ARS) 16A
Page 87
$01133
COUNCIL POLICY 600-14 17A-D
COMPLLANCE EMAIL FROM FEMA (DBS) 18
FEMA DEVIATION GUIDELINES 44CFR 603 I9A-C
FLOOR AREA RATIO SDMC 11.0234 20
PLANING COMMISSION FINDINGS .-.21A-I
UNANIMOUS LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM OWNERS ON
SAME BLOCK AS PROJECT 22A-H
Page 88
001134
PRQJECTOVERVIEW
5166 W. POINT LOMA BLVD.
(OCEAN BEACH)
PROJECT: -Demolition of existing dilapidated 1250 square foot duplex and construction ofa
sinsle-famiiy, three-story home plus underground garage (1,749 square foot house plus garage).
ISSUE: Appeal by a neighbor (in a condo across the street) apparently concerned about his
potential loss of his view toward tbe.ocean, but raising a number of spurious points based on'
misinterpretations ofthe facts and the law.
CITY ENTITLEMENTS BEING APPEALED: Planning Commission approved, by a 6-0
vote on March 1. 2007. ths following entitlements and environmental documentation:
· Coastal Deveiopment Permit
· Site Deveiopment Pennit (to allow deviation only from the Special Flood Hazard
Area reeulations; project is in conformance with all other applicable requirements
[underlying zoning, floor area ratio ("FAR"), height limit, parking, setbacks,
etc.])
· Mitigated Negative Declaration
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY LAND USE REGULATIONS:
· Lot is very small: only 2,500 square feet (0.057-acre). but the minimum lot size
under the applicable zoning is 6.000 square feet
· .Applicable zoning (RM-2-4) provides for F.AR of only .7. and requires that 25%
of the pennittsd FAR be used for parking unless parking is provided
·underground.
· · Project-is located within 100-year floodplain and restrictions require that the first
floor be 2 (two) fsst above the base flood elevation, which would render the first
floor uninhabitable for most properties in the area. If part ofthe first floor had to
be devoted to parking, the habitable space ofthe unit would be very- small
(according to staff report to- Planning Commission).
· . These-constramts, ma}' explain why the existing modest and dilapidated structures
- in the area, built in fhe-mid-1950s, have not been redeveloped.
· " Project's architect came up with an innovative solution: put water-proofed
parking in subterranean area and home above.
· Staff supported the deviation from the Special Flood Hazard Area regulations
(discussed below) in part because ofthe "development limitations" ofthe site.
999999.906026/697378.01
A/
Page 89
001135
HISTORY OF PROJECT'S PROCESSLNG BY CITY:
· City staff initially was concerned re bulk and scale, but project was redesisned to
address those concerns. Staff and Planning Commission found that:
· As redesigned, new home will preserve^the character ofthe area's small-
scale residential development.
· · Revised project is consistent with the Ocean Beach Precise Plan.
· Redesigned project is consistent with the Ocean Beach Action Plan goais
for redevelopment and owner-occupied housing.
· Project would not impact coastal access, physical or visual (no public
view corridors identified by either the Precise Plan or the Action Plan). .
Nevertheless, the project provides a three-foot view corridor on the east
and west sides ofthe property through a deed restriction to preserve views
toward Dog Beach and the San Diego River.
OB planning board voted 4-4 on project. OB land use sub-committee
voted 5-0 in favor. Neither body had any concerns about underground,
parking.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
· Propeny' is considered "environmentally sensitive" solely because it is located ,
within 100-ysar flood plain' and is therefore considered a "special flood hazard
area-" Because this is not an environmental issue per se, it is discussed in the
following section.
· Mitigation monitoring is required b}' the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
possible archeological resources that might be encountered during construction.
· Coastal Commission staff review raised no significant issues.
FLOOD PLAIN ISSUES
·. Propeny- is located in 100-year floodplain and the Base Fiood Elevation ("BFE
,,
)
· is 9.6 feet mean sea level.
J Bla^i^g CQpm}issjptrs fmwgs apicnowjedge |hftt any flpQc^g m tfus
area -vfould be due-tq -iaGk of capaoity of the stOFm
:
ter- systs^. ·'-·
"Flooding in a 100 year"event in this area'is very
:
low'velocity (ponding
6hly)
;
'[and]
::
d6esihot come from the [San Diego] fRJiver or the
!
bsach ais is
commonly believed but from runpff from the streets on the hill above
Ocean Beach. AddltidiMy.' th f-e.'is evidence that recent and significant
· . , · !i f L r
I. , : ) ; I- : · ;
99OOOO.906026/697578.01
#2-
Page 90
001136
storm water repairs in this area should significantly reduce the airsad}' low
risk." (Planning Commission Resolution, at page 14)
The restrictions on development in the floodplain require that the lowest floor .
including basement, be elevated at least two feet above the base fiood elevation
(per SDMC § ·143.0146(C)(6)). and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
("FEMA") requires that the finished floor elevation be at one or more feet above
the BFE.
The project requires, and the Planning Commission approved 6-0 on stafr s
recommendatiorL'a deviation from these requirements to allow deveiopment to be
· at 7.1 feet below the BFE. Importantly, however, the living area ofthe property
(i.e.,.above the garage) will be at 10.6, or one foot above BFE (vs.- current
structure, in which living area is below BFE.
Although the garage would be six (6) feet below existing'grade, the structure has
been designed and flood-proofed to mitigate potential flood-related damage to the
principal residential structure by raising the required living space floor area above
. the flood line consistent with FEMA requirements. .
As conditioned by the Planning Commission, the project is fully consistent with
1
All structures subject to inundation are required to be flood proofed.
· Flood proofed structures must be constructed to meet the requirements of
the Federal Insurance Administration's Technical Bulletin 5-93.
· FEMA. has connrmed, in an e-mail to City staff that the proposed project
- as approved with conditions by the Planning Commission - is fully
consistent not only with FEMA's regulations, but also with the City's
flood plain management ordinance and variance procedures (see
attachment 18).
The City Engineer has determined that the deviation will not result in any
additional threats to the public safety or any additional public expense, and will
not create a public nuisance. In other words, construction of this house will not
result in any change or alteration to the flood potential to any surrounding
structure.
This dsyiBtipn-has been well yetted and approved by staff and Planning
999999.906026/697578:01
fiS
Page 91
001137
SELECTED QUOTES FROM
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS
"I think this is going to be a catalyst for a lot of change and ['.
think that's actually a good thing."- Commissioner Griswold.
2/8/07
"I have no issue with the bulk and scale or other issues. I think
you have done a very good job."- Commissioner Naslund,
2/8/07
M -
"I believe the concern for our building is not the skyline, that's
irrelevant."-Appellant Watson, 2/8/07
"He has done an exemplary job (with) height, width, bulk and
scale massing. I think the project looks fine."-Commissioner
Naslund. 2/8/07
"We have to recognize that he could have built something much
more shear....but in fact he has backed-away deferring to the
i.arge neighborhood going from one to three stories, this is a
design decision and this is what we are looking for...'-
Commissioner Naslund, 2/8/07
"I have no problem with it, it is a great project!"- Commissioner
Griswold, 2/8/07
a i
Page 92
001138
" I feel strongly that we should not, be up here"saying you have
obeyed all the rules and furthermore the community plan says
you would do.these things and then say we don't agree with
it?"-Commissioner Naslund 2/18/0 7
(On flood plan issues).. "That is irrelevant to the community, if
a person wants-to do something on their property that is their
risk..-Appellant Watson, 3/1/07
"I was bom and raised in San Diego. I have worked and lived in
the O.B./Penninsula area continuously since 1988.1 currently
iive and work in Ocean Beach. I live at the property now, anc
this will be my home.."-Applicant Stebbins
"A gentnfication argument in my mind does not apply.."-
Commissioner Naslund 3/1/07
"..it does all the things the precise plan talks about and further
they (the owner) have made a' lot of changes to address even th
bulk and scale.."- Commissioner Naslund, 3/1/07
"I think its inappropriate to establish a set of rules and then do
not grant somebody their rights if they follow them..."-
Commissioner Naslund, 3/1/07
"..this owner has come forward and as mentioned has played by
the rules...followed the exact specifics ofthe precise plans./'-
Commissioner Ontai. 3/1/07
6 ^
Page 93
001139
"We take issue with the statement (by appellant) that the project
is inconsistent with what's anticipated by the community plan .
The plan contains policies to renovate properties that are
substandard and dilapidated and this represents one of many on
that whole side ofthe block. The development is consistent
with the small scale development in-the general neighborhooc
and when we look at the general neighborhood we are looking at
the.area that includes the noticed area not just one side ofthe
block. There are two and three story structures immediately
across from this one. Also, the block to the immediate east
appears to have transitioned from a smaller scale to mostly two
and three story structures as well... So, this is the last area
remaining (this one side ofthe block) where there is nothing but
one story structures. We think that the project is appropriate in
terms of bulk and scale. They are adding oniy 500sq. Feet to
the project, going froml250 to 1750. And we think that they
have done an excellent job of breaking down what bulk anc
scale there was with the original proposal" -Tony Kempton
Senior Planner, 3/1/07
"I am at a good comfort level with what I have heard today of
the technical side of it,"-Commissioner Ontai, 3/1/07
"I feel the methods and means that we heard today would be a
good start in regards to future developments.."-Commissioner
Ontai, 3/1/07
Page 94
001140
"..merely by building.a basement is not going to result in
damase to other structures in the area. Again, the basemeat is
eoin^ to be flood proofed, there are going to be some sump
pumps and in fact this building may react more favorable than
other properties in the area."-Building Director, 3/1/07
"I am familiar with the waterproofing techniques that you are
utilizing and I think they are indeed sufficient... we have used
those on projects ourselves- and I think they work fme."-
Commissioner Naslund, 3/1/07 .
"..if the applicant were to remove the (underground) parking and
0 +0 T r
T-«M-fl-iif\ fT-»o 1-117 1 r\r\o. T- Ami i rAm^- nf c what v mi WfSnlH- f tnH ti n
with is a perfect box, because he would have to make up that
lost space, and I think you (the appellant) would be very
dissatisfied with a perfect box.
What he has done here is create some angles and setbacks and
deviations in the elevations that make the building more
attractive and I think this is really what you want to see in your
coinmunity"-Commissioner Onati, 3/1/07
Page 95
001141
RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS APPEAL OF
STEBBINS RESIDENCE
OVERVIEW
Tnis appeal is troubling to refute; not because it is true but because it inconsistent, lacking in
facts and contradictory. Conclusions are drawn with no basis in fact. Many codes cited are
incomplete, out of context, out of date and in one case never adopted. Appellant's arguments
serve only to confuse the issue and create as much uncertainty as possible. Appellant has focused
on the below grade parking issue even though Appellant has admitted twice in public testimony
that it is irrelevant. Appellant has conveniently forgotten to mention that his large 3 story condo
complex has a very nice view which- might be affected by this project.
Each ofthe following rebuttals are absolutely accurate and based on facts which are proven,
agreed on by staff, well vetted by staff and Planning Commission and which accurately reflect
the letter and intent ofthe appropriate codes or regulations.
the numerous smoke screens propounded by Appellant which I must address as the Applicant
but which have little or no relevance. This is a modest single family home with one deviarion. As
has been stated by others. I have followed all ofthe rules in every respect.
COMMENT ON FEMA. GUIDELINES
When the Applicant or the Appellant is talking about FEMA guidelines or technical bullitins it
· is important to note that FEMA does not make regulations that bind the City. Rather, any
regulations cited are guidelines for state and locai ofnciais to make their own local rules. Tne
City of San Diego has incorporated many of these guidehnes for flood management into the
building code. Tne City code is at least and in some cases more stringent that FEMA
recommendations. Ultimately. FEMA only requires that the city'follows its own procedures. Tnis
has been done to the letter in the case ofthe deviation granted on this project.
1. PROJECT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH COUNCIL POLICY 600-14B
A. Appellant quotes only the first sentence-of the policy and fails to cite or include the other 4
pages of that council policy in his analysis (Attachment 17). The policy document goes on io
enumerate the conditions under which a deviation is granted. Each finding for the project or
deviation under this policy has been made by staff and the Planning commission. This document
and various other city codes and fema guidelines have clear deviation procedures that outline the
conditions for a deviation; all of those have been foUowed.(see staff" findings in staff report).
B. Appellant Watson himself has stated on the record that "the.flood issue is absolutely
ci
Page 96
00114
irrelevant" (planing commission testimony 2/8/07). He does not care about the underground
parkins and has adopted this new posilion only after being unanimously defeated.
C. Throushout his appeal appellant refers to this little flood zone as a "flood plain ofthe San
Dieso River"- itis not. Tnis zone is a flood zone A. Zone A means that there is a 1 in 100
chance in any siven year that a flood would occur and reach the base flood elevation.
^Tnis particular Zone is manmade as city records show. This area has a a very low risk of
noodina . Flood waters, if any would come from the overwhelming ofthe storm drain system, not
from the Ocean or The River as is commonly believed. Flooding would be slow, shallow and of
short duration. These are all characteristics enumerated in the fema guidelines governing
deviations. The flood possibility is statistical only; This area has not flooded to the base flood
elevanon in recorded history.
(**A flood plain would imply alluvial flooding and this area does not include this characteristic;
it is surrounded on all sides by Fiood Zone X. Flood Zone X means-that there is a 1 in 500
chance in any given year that the area will flood. This Zone X would act as a barrier. It encircles
and prevents any other flood waters from affecting the project. Currently three are no federal,
state or local building guidelines that apply to a zone x in this context).
IRRELEVANT.
Tne project was not rejected . It was sent back to applicant for redesign. Tnis is.a normal part of
any process. In addition, the project was redesigned in a major way after intense research and
consultation with city staff. New information was obtained that had not been presented with the
fust project draft. Again this is rather normal. Appellants's use of applicant* s correspondence is
out of context Spscmcaliy. city staff and Applicant were not focused at the time ofthe Iskandar
letter ofthe FEMA deviation regs.
In addition, applicant worked closely with staff and significant]}' scaled back the bulk and scale
ofthe building and added articulation in accordance with city guidelines and the OBPP.
Anpellant therefore, is citing a letter that is out of date and irrelevant as to the current design.
3. APPELLANT MISSTATES FEMA GUIDEHNES;
A. The words "strictly prohibits" do not appear in an}' regulation. These words were uttered by a
junior fema employee (Blackburn) who has not spoken to city' staffhas not viewed any aspect of
the project and whose only source of info was a few sentence inquiry from appellant.
Michael Homick is Blackburn's superior at Fema (DHS). He was provided all regulations and
schematics and proposed findings concerning the project After reviewing the project and
discussing the project with the city
1
engineer. Mr. Homick stated that "I am confident that city
staff is pursuing the correct course of action with regard to your own variance procedures."
(Email 4/12/07-See attacmentlS).
44 CFR 60.3 states "The administrator does not set forth absolute criteria for granting
Page 97
001143
variances.." Also, "A community may propose flood plain management measures which adopt
standards for flood proofed residential basements."(60.6(b)(2)©) . (See attachment 19 for full
text.)
B. Fema recosnizes that all flood zones are not created equal and has provided 'flexibility to the
community
7
. These reaulations set forth specific criteria and characteristics that a project must
have to meet the deviation requirements. This project meets each of these requirements*;
1. The lot is less than VS acre
2. Tne potential flooding is of low velocity', long warning times and short duration
3. Flood velocities are 5 feet per second or'less
4. Flood-depths are less than 5 feet
5. As stated-above all ofthe other findings have been met (see staff findings and owner's
supplemental info in this packet).
6. The flood proofing measures have been well vetted to the city engineer and Pianning
commission in rwo separate hearings.
(*this is a summary please read 44cff60.6 in its entirety')
The fema guidelines are clear; deviations are allowed. Otherwise why would Appellants spend
so much time in his next section trying to show the deviation is unjustified?
. Appellant argues that the city' couid be expelled from the NFIP program. Again, this is out of
(
-.
r
.
i rV
f..
1
._j (q: -.- J^ - srinn!; srf, sMr.wcd there is no VjOlciiion of anv ofthe Eridlines and there ^^ o
consequences. Appellant likes to use words like "violation" when no .violation exists.
4. THE PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OCEAN BEACH PRECISE
PLAIN';
A. Appellant states that residence violates precise plan. He asserts that a 1750 sq. foot residence
can be built without parking below grade. This is incorrect SDMC S. 11.0234(b)(6) states that
"Gross floor area includes on or above grade parking" Therefore, any parking, area must be
deducted from allowable square footage..It is a matter of public record. Staff agrees.
Appellant completely MISSTATES the law. His conclusion .that staff and applicant mislead ths
public is disingenuous. If Apphcant could build an above ground garage and not lose any
habitable square feet he would do so. Appellant's argument is pure fabrication. Even if
Apphcant could devote ground floor to parking the result would be an unarticulated block style
buildins that would be inconsistent with the community' plan.
B. The Appellant is incorrect about the visual impacts. .Ail 3 foot public view corridors are
presen'ed. The building is stepped back from one to two to three stories. No public views would
be blocked from elevated areas because there are no elevated public views. In fact Appellant
fails to point out that he lives in a 3 story monolithic block condo complex across the street with
a magnificent private view.(Inte^estingl5
,
- Appellant's building probably could not be built today
because of setbacks and inadequate flood proofing) With 4 foot setbacks. Appellant's building
blocks the sunlight from several properties behind his. The Stebbins residence is 95 feet away
from the nearest structure (other than the neighbors on the project side ofthe street- all of
whom favor the proj ect
C3
Page 98
00.1144
"The Community' plan contains policies to renovate properties that are substandard and
dilapidated. And this represents one of many on that whole block. The development is consistent
with small scale development in the general neighborhood and when we look at the "
neisiiborhood we are looking at the area that includes the noticed area not just one side ofthe
block. There are two and three story structures immediately across from this one. Also, the block
to the immediate east appears to have been transitioned from mostly smaller scale to mostly two
and three story structuresasweli... we think that the project is appropriate in terms of buLk and
scale, they are only adding approximately five hundred square feet to the project going from 1250
to 1750 and we think they have done an excellent job of breaking down what bulk and scale there
was with the original proposal." Tony KemptoiL senior planner Planning commission gearing
2/8/07 ***(Appellants complains about visual impact and quotes Mr. Kempton in regards "to a
previous design .The project was redesigned and resubmitted in 2005).
6. APPELLANT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT AS THIS
IS ONE STRUCTURE LESS THAN 3 UNITS AND THEREFORE EXEMPT
Still, Ocean Beach area rents are well above the median. No "affordable" housing presently
exists on this block please see staff report.
Appellant calls the geotechnical report new information, even though he correctly cites the date
ofthe report as 8/5/05. Tnis information was in fact considered as part ofthe MND and
considered ·insignificant Updated answers were provided to city staff in the normal course of
business and are part ofthe record.
B. Applicant is willing to go on record as agreeing to correct any minor problems associated "with
dewatering. Apphcant
1
s contractor believes dewatering may not be necessary-depending on the
time of year and other factors.
Please remember all ofthe neighbors on Applicant's side ofthe street that could potentially be
affected have provided letters of support(Attachments 21 a-f). According to the report, damage if
an}', is speculative and would be minor...even appellant does not dispute this. Nevertheless.
Appellant leaps to the unsupportabie conclusion that this is cause for denial ·
8. APPELLANT'S STATEMENTS THAT FEMA VARIANCE IS UNWARRANTED IS
CONTRADICTORY;
Appellant contradicts himself when he states that a fema variance is unwarranted. Earner,
Appellant stated (incorrectly) that underground parking was "strictly prohibited" Now. Appellant
soes to great lengths to say the deviation is unsupported. There cannot be a delation procedure
for a prohibited act. Furthermore, as quoted above, appellant stated that the underground parking
was "irrelevant". Appellant again misstates the ob precise plan and the building code. And
claims that above ground parking would not diminish the total allowable space.
c
Li-
Page 99
001145
' The building code is explicit for this property; all parking areas (in this case-2 spaces) must be
deducted from floor area ratio calculations (SDMC S. 11.0234(b)(6), Appellant's claim that city
staff and applicant have made false claims or that staff does not understand or has misrepresented
the building code and .should interpret it'differently is spurious and false. Appellant again quotes
statements from staff that apply to a prior design which are again irrelevant.
'B. Appellants claims that the hardship standard has not been met: This erroneous conclusion is
based this on Appellant's claim that a 1750 sq foot house can in fact be built with above ground
parking, we know this to be false. Without a deviation for the parking apphcant would need to
build a 1250 square foot house which would make no sense and as one commissioner pointed out
create a block style unarticulated structure which I am quite certain appellant would like even
less.
In addition, it is economically unfeasible to tear down a 1250 sq. foot residential structure on the
beach only to replace it with another. Even though this is to be my home, the finished product
given the costs' of construction must justify the expenditure. This is a prime site and the only
justifiable way to build and therefore improve the neighborhood is to go up. Appellant cites no
facts to support his conclusion,that there is no hardship-he merely concludes. Appellant does not
provide any suggestions -about any other viable design.
C. Appellant cites possible (60)(a)(3ii)) "nuisances" nuisances are permanent characteristics
that misht be created after the project is completed not during construction. No one..including the
appellant has pro\aded supporting facts citing a nuisance after the project is completed.
All of applicants comments about public safety are conclusory and do not provide facts or proof.
This is yet another set of "red herrings."
D. Appellant's comments about flood insurance are irrelevant because that is a private matter.
However, I have obtained a quote based on preliminary designs of $3000 per year and that is
expected to decline to about S8-900 once the flood proofing schematics and final engineering
certification are done. I pay S750 per year at this time.
9. DEVIATION IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY;
Appellant claims that this deviation is not the minimum necessary; appellant does not cite any
viable alternatives and those he does cite are based on appellant misrepresenting the building
code as stated above. He again falsely states that I can build a 1750 Sq. Foot house with'above
ground parking. (If trueJ would be happy to redesign).
· Tne house as designed has exactly 1750 sq. feet of living space. Tnis is a moderate house by any
measure. It only adds 500 sq. Feet to the existing stmcture. no living space will exist below
grade .
10. APPELLANT MISSTATES FLOOD DEPTH CRITERLA;
cr
Page 100
001146
A. Appellant claims that fiood depth would be too great (fema guidelines, (44cfr 60.3) sugsest
no more than 3 foot maximum flood depth.for a deviation). Appellant has his math wrong. Here,
the base flood elevation is 9.6 feet The grade at the property
1
is 7.8 feet.. therefore, the mean
flood depth in a 100 year flood is 1.8 feet..well below the suggested 3 foot guideline. It i s a
simple matter of math. Tne Base flood elevation was established by the FIRM and city' records.
Engineering staff has concluded that there is no danger to any surrounding property due to the
flood nroofins.
B. Appellant suggests that there might be .tidal flooding yet presents no evidence. Staffhas stated
that there is no tidal flooding. The site is flat and staffhas concluded that there will be no adverse
affect on the flood zone. Fema flood maps show that this flood zone is surrounded on all sides hy
a flood zone x (500year flood) Therefore, Appellant's comments are misleading and have no
basis in fact Of course coastal commission has reviewed the project and is not requiring wave
runup studies because there is no tidal floodmg.
11. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE;
·Dewatering is a common construction technique and does not create any environmental issues.-
AriTisiisnt imnhes some environmental ciannaL! to neiLinbo^iii
1
-' TVif' ^"* in tv** ·firif** "ir.— run
does not cite an}' evidence of any poteniial environmental damage and makes only vaeue
generalized complaints. Appellant again calls this a flood plain; it is not There is a big
difference; a man made flood zone is not a natural resource. Staffhas stated that there are no
environmental impacts to the flood zone.
Tnis site is already developed and is not a natural resource. Tnere are no environmentally
sensitive lands for it to affect .And Appellant does not cite any potential damase of any
significance. Appellant's conclusions are overly general and amount to no more than non-expert
opinion about dire consequences which are unsupported by any factual proof.
12. RETAINING WALLS ARE NOT NEEDED;
Anpeilant suggests the driveway be classified as a shoreline protective device...Tnere is no
authority for this statement especially as it applies to this project which separated from the
shoreline by a massive(several acres) parking lot and a flood zone X.
Tne sid?s of a drJYp^y oyer ] PQ v^rds av^y from the beacj} and separatsq from |he beach bv 4
3 story structure and g.p^riqng lot pfa^pi $$·$ shorslmeprpte^ion deyjep. Cpastal Commission'
Page 101
001147
13. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PROJECT IS IN ANY WAY DETRIMENT AE TO
PUBLIC HEALTH;
A. Appellant argues that the project would be detrimental to public health...but does not state
how...Appellant provides no specifics other than some out of context fema regs. Appellant again
refuses to cite the deviation regulations so his arguments are-merit less. Appellant calls
everything a violation when we are dealing with a deviation.. Rebuttal to such conclusory
argument is unnecessary.
B. Appellant inaccurately quotes neighbor and project supporter Byron Meadows who stated "
some water entered my house 2 feet and wet my carpet"(piease replay the tape) Appellant says
the water was 2-3 feet deep and that Byron lost everything. Tnis is again untrue. (Tnis was durins
the S2-83 El Nino season). Even if it were true, flood proofing measures .would increase safety'
not decrease safety; Tnat same flood would have caused no damage.
C. Appellant provided a nice picture of this same event in 82-S3 which actually proves the point
the flooding was at grade only and may have lapped at the end structures on the block....this flood
ievel is 1.8 beiow bfe. 2.8 below my fiood proofing measures and this was the second worst
storm is OB history. The worst storm occurred 2 years ago and the streets and parking lot did not
even flood possibly due to recent storm drain work..this would of course be the predicted result.
Tt would take far worse storms to even come close to overwhelming my flood proofing
measures. Appellant once again fails to show how my house can be a detriment to public safety'.
Ironically the'buiiding where Appellant lives would suffer far greater damage than my house
since it is at srade and not flood proofed in the least.
14. THE SITE IS SUITABLE;
A. Anpeliant again suggests that an alternative to the current building would be above srade
parking but again does not understand the floor area ratio limitations. The city is not required to
propose alternatives to the homeowner. Tne site is aiready developed and the footprint does not
really change-there is no impact to environmentally sensitive lands so the site is suitable..
B. Appellant states that the deviation is based on fema technical bulletin 3-93 and that this is
misleading because the document generally covers non-residential structures.
Nothing in this document is restrictive, it is merely a technical opinion. To suggest that this
somehow limits what one can do with a residence is a tortured and C3iiical piece of reasoning
that .barely justifies rebuttal.
Still, that bulletin is merely a flood proofing guideline and it was cited for technical reasons .
Actual]}'the laws of physics do not differentiate between residences and business. Moreover. The
city' engineer will have to sign off on the final constructions documents and anpiicants design
must be certified reasonable safe from flooding by an engineer. Tnis is another red herring
argument. . » · · .
Page 102
001148
C. appellant-states that the public was misled because the full title ofthe fema 3-93 bulletin was
not cited..this is disineenuous nitpicking as the document is freely available on the internet. Even
so.-it'is;the Appellant who is misleading the public as he refuses to acknowledge that deviations
for underground parking are allowed.
15. NEW INFORMATION IS NOT NEW;
Appellant stapled a sheet labeled "new information" to his appeal. It states that cd coastal
overlay prohibits my proposal; THIS IS FALSE -THE SECTION APPELLANT REFERS TO
WAS NEVER ADOPTED Tne section cited (Appendix B ofthe OBPP) is a mockup of an
overlay zone was never and has no legal effect...If one tries to follow the cut and paste gibberish
in this'argument it implies that any structure built after 1980 would be illegal. There is no · ·
reeulation nrohibinna the building'of a house on my lot Appellant's suggestion would be that no
house of any kind could be built Essentially, Appellant neglects to apply the permissive
exceptions^and ausmentations and revisions in any part of any code he has cited. Appellant
simply refuses to attach or cite any sections that do not favor his position. Any honest review of
the current coastal regulations shows this to be another tortured and out of sync analysis ofthe
code.
21. PROJECT HAS NO CITY WIDE SIGNIFICANCE;
Appellant suesests there is citv wide significance to my project. Tnis is not true. First Ocean
Be"acb is the only zip code in the county' that has such a restrictive F.A.R. (.70) coupled with this
zonin2(rm2-4). Add to that "the small lot fiood criteria and the view potential heeded to make a
proiect like this economically feasible and the likelihood of this deviation occurring again on any
other block in the county is tiny-if not impossible. This block is a subset of a subset of a subset
Appellant has raised fear of "mass" development yet does'not provide an}' facts which support
this conclusion. Even so, the zoning, F.A.R. and community plan changes that would be
necessary to significantly change the character of this neighborhood are not even on anyone's
drawins board. Currently, everyone on the block parks illegally in their setback. If anything
Applicants house will create less density' and legal parking on his lot for the first time in 40 years.
22. THERE -ARE NO DEFICIENCIES IN THE MND;
Appellant claims an there is an"omission" to .potential (minor) damages to adjacent residences
and that this is sisnificant This report has been in the record for almost two years. Furthermore,
every adjacent property' owner has stated in writing that they approve ofthe project. The
applicant claims that if 6 more owners build on the block this could create a walling off" effect
Appellant provides no evidence of how this would come about other than vague statements.
Tne statements and desires of any other owners regarding the future development of their
respective propenies though sincere are speculative. Of course, any project going forward would
be required to observe the 3 foot-public visual corridors between properties even though this area
is not desisnated for public views. There would be no "walling off effect" as the street is open to ·
c
Page 103
001149
the pjtfto'aodfc a e area of beach on each side and because the street in front is very wide and
there will be absolutely no effect on the public view and there is no elevated public view nearby.
Therefore, there could be no walling off effect
B. Appellant has presented NO evidence ofa cumulative impact. Appellant has presented no
evidence that 6 houses built on this same block would have ANY impact "In the absence of
specific factual foundation in the record, dire predictions by nonexperts regarding the
consequences of aproject do not-constitute substantial evidence", (Bankers Hill v. City' of San
Diego) 2006 Cal. APP.Lexis 684.
CONCLUSION
There are no "violations" of fema regulations in this project Tne proposed deviation meets all of
the criteria set out by the city' and fema The project has been vetted by over 400 hours of staff
time and two planing commission hearing's it was enthusiastically approved. Appellant likes to
call each and every aspect ofthe project a "violation"biit provides no proof or.specific evidence,
Appellant MISSTATES or misinterprets the building regulations. Appellant quotes laws that
were not adopted. Appellant acknowledges that a deviation procedure exists and then flip-flops
contradictory and circular.
This Appeal is disturbing. Tne Appellants technique of manipulating the data and the facts to
serve his own asenda is a waste ofthe Council's time. Appellant has presented not one new or
different piece of information that would justify his appeal. Furthermore, Appellant lives across
the street in a condo complex on the third floor and enjoys a very nice ocean view. Tnis is a fact
of sisnificance. Ironically Appellant's view will not be significantly impaired As the first floor of
AppUcanf s house is 95 feet away. Neither Appellant had the courtesy to show up to the planning
board hearines thoush one Appellant has waged a misleading email campaign. When Appellant
lost in front ofthe planning commission Appellant ran to the planning board without notifying
.Appellant in an attempt to get support-for an appeal: they failed
Tnere is no ereat public controversy over this project: in fact there is just as much, if not more
support for it Tnere is unanimous support from ail the property' owners on the block. Most
importantly the applicant has followed fee rules. Tne appellant does not. Tnere are no violations
ofthe code or any of fema regulation. Everything including the deviation has been done by the
book. The project as reviewed by the planning commission enjoys their unanimous support and
ftie suppprt of city s^ff, '
c i
Page 104
001150
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND TALKING POLNTS FROM APPLICANT
5166 W. POINT LOMA BLVD, STEBBINS RESIDENCE
As requested I have provided yon with technical information regarding the fiood proofing
ofthe below grade parking area for my home. Please consider the following: -
THE DESIGN IS SAFE
1. ALL HABITABLE SPACE MILL BE ABOVE FLOOD ELEVATION PER FEMA
REGULATIONS. THE ONLY. .AREA BELOW BFE WILL BE THE PARKING .AREA
AND THIS WILL BE DRY FLOODPROOFED. THE DEVIATION REQUESTED IS
FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING ONLY. THE REST OF THE PROJECT AND ALL.
HABITABLE AREAS FOLLOW THE BUILDING CODE PRECISELY.
2. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL HABITABLE AREAS OF MY HOUSE WILL BE 2.5 FEET
.ABOVE CURRENT GRADE. ALL OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS ZONE ARE
INCLUDING MINE ARE CONSTRUCTED AT A MAXIMUM ONE FOOT ABOVE
czTi A TtV ft * EEET BELOW FLOOD) OR AT GRADE. IRONICALLY THIS MEANS
jyTY HOUSE WILL BE THE ZONE"j SAFE& i AND THE ONLY PROPERTY IN
COMPLLANCE WITH FEMA GUTDLINES.
3. THIS FLOOD ZONE IS A MINOR FLOOD ZONE. PLEASE DO NOT BE
DISTRACTED BY THE PROXIMITY TO THE BEACH. THE OCEAN HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION. THE SITE IS 450 FEET AWAY
FROM THE SAND AND ANOTHER 100 YARDS TO THE WATER. THERE IS NO
CURRENT DOCUMENTED RISK FROM COASTAL FLOODING. IT IS SEPARATED
FROM THE SAN DIEGO RTVER BY A ZONE X.
4. THIS FLOOD ZONE EXISTS ONLY BECAUSE THE CITY STORM DRAIN
SYSTEM IS POTENTLALLY INADEQUATE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS
FACT. FLOODING (IF ANY) IN A 100 YEAR EVENT.WOULD BE SLOW, SHALLOW
AND LOW VELOCITY-EASILY
r
HANDLED BY MY ENGINEERING. A FLOOD OF
THIS TYPE HAS NOT OCCURRED IN THIS ZONE IN RECORDED HISTORY.
5. DUE TO RECENT STORM DRAIN WORK THE ABOVE MAY NO LONGER BE A
POTENTIAL PROBLEM .ALTHOUGH THES^HAS NOT BEEN STUDIED.
6. SINCE THE PROBLEM (THE FLOOD ZONE) WAS CREATED BY THE CITY THIS
DEVLATION IS FAIR TO THE APPLICANT AND COSTS THE CITY NOTHING .
Page 105
001151
7. THIS AREA IS BLIGHTED-EVEN THOSE LUKEWARM .ABOUT THE PROJECT
HAVE AGREED ON THIS POINT. OB PLANNING BO.ARD DID NOT OBJECT TO
THE UNDERGROUND ASPECT OF THIS PROJECT.
8. COMMERCLAL UNDERGROUND PARKING IS UBIQUITOUS EVEN IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNLA AND NO DEVLATION IS REQUIRED . THE
CONVENTION CENTER PARKING IS BELOW SEA LEVEL. ' *
THE PROJECT IS A BIT UNUSUAL BUT THE TECHNOLOGY IS PROVEN
1. THE SITE IS A SMALL LOT WITH AN F.AR OF .70; THE PENINSULA PLANNING
DISTRICT IS THE ONLY AREA IN SAN.DIEGO COUNTY WITH A SMALL F.A.R .
FOR THIS ZONING. ALL OTHER RM2-4 PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY HA%^E
L.ARGER F.AR . THE SAME IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN PACIFIC BEACH AND MOST
ANALOGOUS AREAS XJF THE- SOUTHERN CALIFORNLA COAST.
2. OWNERS IN THESE OTHER AREAS HANE THE .ABILITY TO BUILD ABOVE
GRADE PARKING. I DO NOT. THIS IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS NOT YET
SEEN A PROJECT OF THIS TYPE. MY SITE IS IN THE ZONE A WHICH FURTHER
EXPLAINS WHY IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. ESSENTIALLY MY LOT IS A SUBSET
OF A SUBSET OF A SUBSET.
3. EVEN IF THE F.AR WAS MAGICALLY INCREASED, THIS PROJECT WITH AN
.ABOVE GROUND GARAGE WOULD PRESENT SIGNIFICANT' BUILD .AND SCALE
ISSUES. UNDERGROUND PARKING .ALLOWS A MORE ELEGANT .ARTICULATED
DESIGN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
4. IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD AN UNDERGROUND BASEMENT,
ESPECLALLY.IN SAND AND A NARROW SETBACK/LOT LINE. THEREFORE
ONLY PROPERTIES WITH VIEW POTENTLAL WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY
VLABLE. THIS FURTHER EXPLAINS THE LACK OF SIMILAR PROJECTS TO
DATE.
Page 106
001152
5. FEMA REGULATIONS ARE TAILORED ALMOST SPECIFICALLY FOR MY LOT;
THE REGULATIONS THAT .ALLOW THE DEVLATION SPECIFY A LOT OF LESS
THAN y* ACRE IN A DEVELOPED ARE A BEING THE ONLY CANDIDATE FOR
THIS DEVLATION. MY LOT QUALIFIES . THE FLOOD ZONE SHOULD BE
SHALLOW, LOW VELOCITY WTTR LONG WARNING TIMES: MY LOT
QUALIFIES -IF THERE WAS EVER A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR UNDERGROUND
PARKING, MY PROJECT IS IT!
6. SAN DIEGO IS A DRY CLIMATE. THE FLOOD PROOFING MEASURES I
PROPOSE ARE UBIQUITOUS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTY. THEY' MAY BE
UNFAMILLAR TO US BECAUSE WE ENJOY A PRETTY MILD CLIMATE.
NEVERTHELESS THE DRY PROOFING OF BASEMENTS AND FLOOD BARRIER
TECHNOLOGY IS VENERABLE. SOME OF THE PRINCIPLE .ARE CENTURIES
OLD.
CONCLUSION
£r>m*>t4»Tt&c the more cne focuses on s nrchlsm the 2sr"sr it ss**'***' T om mmtacrinrr o
deviation for underground parking oniy. All other aspects of this project precisely meet the
code. Residential underground parking is not common because ofthe factors I have
outlined above. Please keep in mind that many areas of San Diego flood each year. Many of
these areas are not in designated fiood zones. Yet, my area has not flooded. Still, I have
provided a fiood proof solution that should will make my property safer than even'
property in the area and most properties in any San Diego Coastal Zone. I am doing this at
my expense even though the problem was created by poor storm drain management.
I am the first in Ocean Beach to do this in a residential zone. This is done all the tinae in '
commercial zones without a deviation required. Being first does not mean it's a bad
idea...it just means I am first. Nevertheless, due to the economics of the beach and the very
few properties with characteristics like mine, this will not be a major deveiopment trend
and will result in no more than a handful of similar projects.
_R£spectfuIiy Submitted,
)
J^aVtd-SrSDMnsTESQ.
in
Page 107
F e b . 1 3 07 11 : 1 4 a
001153
UUKIKGE-STON-BROOK
BIS 2 S 4 S 2 9 D
P. 1
. [AMES SCOTT FLEMING, AlA
STONEBROOK STUDIO, INC ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
I'EBRUARY i 7 . 2 0 0 7
I alia Iskandar
1 rojec t ^ r a ^ e f
(lizy of San Diego deveiopment Services
. 722 IK Ave
'.zn Diego. C ^ 52101
i .£· Stebbins^Residence
I loodproofmg
I >ear Ms. Iskandar;
. ' Ve have reviewed the" flood proofing criteria tor the basement parking garage as requested by die members of tha
I tanning Commission on pebruary B, 2007. Alcmg with addidonai informaiton Mr. Stebbins has put togethsr.we have
. i rea'ced additionaj exhibits showing the proposed flood proofing details and gace structures in schenaric form.
, > j indicat&d in the ©diiblts. The basement wttts will be construc ted of i 2" concrete wails'and a min. IS" chick concrete slab
i oor. The wafo and floor wiii be structuralt)- designed to resist any future hydrostatic as well as buoyancy.forccss generated
f iy possible fiood water that may accumulate sr. ths site. The resistant forces will be engineered per FEMA technical bulletin
~9l
t
and NFIP (Niarionai Hood Insurance Pno#ram) recommendations, as well as taia^g into consideration any impact
i arcs; rgnersrsd ir-' sostln^'debrii. Ti":= bs.ss"e." wzl'.t and retaifiing yvari?. at the sloping rirr.-Eway , ES weii zz the tiab
i tciow wiD ben entirely waterproofedffioodproofed utilizing a "Tremco" wzrsr proofing systetn so chac no mcstscura/'water
. nay penetrate into the basement . Ths Waterproofing wS! be protec ted from damage by backfill protec tion materiaJ.
an
d z
· vacsr drainage grid system will be utiltred on me sidewalis and underslab to direct any bull: up moisture to a sump system
·. hat will direct water out and away from -die structure, Tne struc ture will be completely fioodproofed to one foot above
· he 9.6 fiood level elsvatior..
> ccurance it tray'be needed
itiliaes (electrical etc .) will be" protected by placing the main panels and sirvices above the 9.6 flood level. Sewer olscarge
)ipss will be equipped with backfiow prever.cion devices.
!> ur officB will be providing design and engine-Ering for the project, along with the assisiancs of Mr. de ssradinis , our
truc turai engineering consultant Christain Wheaier Engineering, geotechnical consulant and Sunshine Supply Corporation,
)ur vs-sterprooftng consultant to assure that both the structure andjoodproofing will be providing Mr, Stebbins with
.ssurance that his home will be adaquately prctectsd.
ames-'Scoc: FlemingTAtA
iconebropl: Scudic, lnc
2 2 4 0 SKELTER ISLAND DRIVE, SUITE ZQ3
{S ' i 3 )BZZ~ 09 SZ ·
DIEGO, CALIFORNIA S2 1 0 5 .
{51 S ) £ 2 4 - B2 9 0
*
Page 108
02/1S
:
2007 15:59 ' ·E5B^9D375B
CHRISTIAN WHEELER EN
PASE 01
001154
CHRISTIAN WrfEELEFl
CNG I N c EKl N C
Ftbnirirr^.aOO?
494E Voitairs Strcr- Suits i,'\
San Diceo. ·CaiirnmiR ?2107
OK^ 2040314.3
SUBJECT: REVIEW Or SCHEMATIC FLOOD PROOFING DESIGN, PROPOSED
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, ol66 WEST POINT LOMA
BOULEVAKB, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
^RENC
SS: 1) Report of Frcliminftrjr Gcorecnnical Inresrigdtioa, Proposed Single-ramiiy Rssidenct,
·5165 West Point Loma Boulevard, Caiifomia, br&aredhy Cbrisrian Whseisr Engineerinf;
CWE P.epon No, 20403.14.1, dattd-junz 14.2004' ·
J
. 2) Rssponfit co2
rd
Geot£CJinicalRevisw.ofDDzunients,'ProposedSm^ie-Famiiv "
· "Cv'neeicr ungiascdag, u"wi. Kffporr PNCJ. 20^0314,£. iif/cc Augusi-o, 2005.
3) 5chcman= FIOOG rrooang Design P r y FioodProo&ng}, Baacraent Garage. Stebbins
President:;:, prtpsndOTj smes Scott Pisrarig . ALA akria'Fcbniarv 14, 200".
4) user's Guide to Tccbaiau. BulicdnF., Indudisg Key Word/Subject index, T
c
d,nicaj
Bulicdn Guidc-Ol^preptfTw'^ ?edr:a!Eme?g«nCT Manae-insa: Ae-ncr. FIA-TB-0 dz'cc
May 2001- " ~ · "
Dcsr Mr, Scsbbins;
In accordanrt with the rcouss: of Mr. James Scort Fleming, AL-_, ofStonEbrook Studio, inc. 's's have
prepared rbis icrrtr cc provide gcotsshnical conment on the above refsrsoccd nood proo£ng ·design for the
subjeer residcact. Based on our review of :hc rererenecd flood prooSag schemRiie and rhi facts that as
prwsnced on page 5 of me Citv 5K.f: Report No. ?C-07-nT0 ror the laeetbg of me rianning Corasusuion,
Agehdn of rcbniAn- 8, 2007, the propoKed flood proonng of the s^ucture will need co sadsfv tbc
requirements presented in FEMA's Teehnioal Bulledn 3-93 and that a registered civil cneiuee: or architect
will need to cerdfr uia: the requiremenc put forth in Technieai BuHetia 3-93 have bsen met iriof to
uccupfiacy of the reRidcnc*, ir is ou: profeasbnul opinion that the proposed flood proofing conerar c?x be
successmirr incoiporutcd into xnt CO.IE truedon of the orooosed sindc-farriiv residence
925 . 'Ncrccry S t r ee : + San -Oicgo. CA 92111 * S f 5 · 4 5f t - 9 7 6 0 * FA.X 8 5 S · 4 9 f> - p 7 5 S
/4
Page 109
B2 /1 3'2 307 1 £:52 8564553756
CO
CHRISTIAN WHEELER EN
PAGE B2
February- 19. 2007
Pa^c No. 2
if you hivre -ny question« regnrding- this letter, please do not nesitart to contact this office. Chdsdan.
Wnedcr Engineering appredates this oppormnitr of prtnnding prqtcsEJODal scraee^ for vou for the subiect
project,
Rrspecifuriy submitted.
CHRISTIAN VvKEELEP. FJ^GIKEERING
^4^
t?.
Charlef; H. ChriRdan. GE 215
CIIODRR
l±l/L<
Da-rid R. Russell,fCEG 22*:5
(5) Subminec i
(1) vi:, ntt-(6!9) 225-0174
fi) via '.iff^'Jjffrobin^ror.ngf
/ &
Page 110
001157
.OOD BARRIER DIAGRAMS
AND SCHEMATICS
Page 111
V\
NO IE:
['AN SIDI S AMD
!· i r i .'/ifi" SUTOHI iw e
/ rxi' * i / r cwimioous m a c
.fl
1
HIIIR
- l - ^- p
RCf R
I
( VTC
1- IIPMII i o SHJftll i&Nfn — '
tJWTn '
PlIfF
feffi
mils
nri j ni:ifi
non
0
is:
aca
i
urn) '
.Hill: -
_VJ^i.
- m rr o STRifn;
i i n AKISI
PLAN VIEW AT PAN
SCALE 3/0 "= I'-O".
rA ( ( s ruo i ]i j !n t( rxi "w. i i n W«^E eoMniiuous WELE
B/lCK 11 'I'M WXItD B" O.C Wtl l> IO TMI
noon)
W KOfjriD RAK
BR-BAII rnrintoiOM
wmjtv v Ai i ( i io iuKi"i« . in5i i>J. lAi ior(piwji i )6
_
nrT /ui rti B yi t / awwiei (SKI
5
TOa w , nneioiUGE
ne: WIDI DWOT ro n IITE/ PT n o n . r i u ) ; egoAaY SCMIT B f iv yisH
(VFnnr« . iHsiv awiio''Pw«Er; <"
« i f i r « ( awiHp (srnEinsii'F.siOEPaiECGE-
or AtiiH.r/v t EAti i sroeorsi tts
M m
J'n i / r I'n ' 101 /1 " J-tD.'/T
r - i i wr j n -
:EF
SIAGCIR Willi RfllE EITTTORI lUBrKAS
SKnvtt, DtlEIEKI BETEnilOMIBJG
-— Ei-
-Tlij-iiii t i n
, i i ,r SECMON B-B
SCALE 3 / f r - r - 0 "
MI mi nrGti
r - o i i r l J' ft i /B' J-fti/B" I'.IJ-
DKIWlEninGC.
p&MOiinWKron ITJ
r o- r o i/»'
:
IEJ
:
^EF
\
^Ef
4=
3=
i'-9 m ' J-.I ire"
:
L00R SLAMS TO BE STITCI t WELDED 3/16" X 3" LONG 1.2" O.C.
Revolulfonary Flood Control
Ai j IomnHc Ho o d o ti l c i - n o f tco f i le m i pnuci ?
SCALE:
ASNOIEU
DRAWH BV: CWJJ
RE: ADDENDUM \
C5
cn
CUSTOMER NAME WJIMHELD
21'-ir' x G-T
VEHICULAR GAT'E if If a n
FLOOUBREAK SEIllAi. fl # #fl ff
PAN PLAN LAYOUT AND SECIION
DAIE:
U3-;.(3-U5
SMEEI:
3 DP 7
Page 112
CD
O
NOT
K:
( tn i i l d . A I I ^'. r H d A l l u III A'UMIf v 'iHI.M; I(I|I1!VJ: .
Hf.w v K .'· > i/iv i xiinci io - j - i i. itAiti: utnv. IMIKI I
I. -OH
IVH'MI WAN 1 ACM I (JD ( J!) l StlO'.V.'J. If ; ', I Al l | l> \ U 1 .1
I". KM
03
O
K l,'l( . " IIIIKIIA i l l . * ( /l l l l M y . l M l f n - -111 t, '. |
CAN i / - r ': rh) i >i i i M A tr . . 'IADI SI I
1
,^ MINI - ·»> t;'.t
V
11 At nM r. . i; i>i)MniiAU!,. MIIIII IIIUA) AIJI. II S . HINCI :. (IKAIH U I M n . M i f j i
.' lllHi. f ti l l l i '. Ul l l t M'AIHil V . ?; i ||t liKAIlC tl>t. ntU I · - '111 UM
i .HIJMII/IIH (Mm w n n i n v n i i i AIUMIUIIM WIMI H I i d i i AW;, A-, HI M M
·i i n f . tn i ( l m tn ·iinyi CM Mi f j iMtn /n NAY ; . i tn UI.III
*.. HI Itlti i lK lt;<.HAfc, |( | nt A '. i n /tttV.. Mill I · <.tl KM
u. M i m K i M tn i i i i m i M M i i ri imiCKiUA i MH ILX. IMO I IM I <;AII: o n i*A fJAm I A I U I I
IHM n tj I M M I;J(AV*JIMI:-. A H n u n II \v f mf f . 'i . , U D I MUU v n o n ( A I I H U XH O N
IHI M littAVVlf.x.!.. AH! \ !.:.! MUAtlV III HISIIUfCniUAl iVHIrt OH WtllVMVIIM
f i i i i l i . i l i i i luAn: . A:J|I IK MH i i rttiMm ···ii;; . I >AMI- II ·. {» sui n v . n n;, AMI-.
Al M AM'., Mhl'. . MIMf Ml U'. AMI) IIKIIUiMDf Mil CAJj, Atill H(IM AM. l l ·
CI 1M( <./<ll ( t- IM WIKC, Alll ItMII - iMMM (HIV Il i t l/i lMl l iA in i l .
l AMtJi . I f J I i n r r / 'i l D l l i A M IK'M '. ^H IU V. IMAtr. KHtl fl'JIK O'i l l f i U I t V
l tl ( ; i ) i n i M |U I \ '. V l l l M l l !. l III A I- l 'l lDVHH lVf UH IINIItlM l
Q
tlMII I i - 'I l I I'll VII I*.' Mf i i f.tlt III IM- || Al III nt H IM ( . M l
jM ti v o lul lo n i i i y L lo o i f (^o nho t
im/ii' .fi i n ' i t ' . i i
HI: AI)i> IMiliM . ' / .
(D '.IOMI U tlAHIr'lVMMMf III
J V IV n f , ' }
-
VI l l i l UlAl l CAM i'Hl>o
i i nui i l i H i Al, M IIIA: » * * * ·
l . l i . i 'i o i IM i i '' n ; |i i AVi i i i i
!>'. 11 III /II i<<.
M i l l I \ ··' /
EXHIBIT 1-D
Page 113
CD
CD
CO
·FLOODGATE" BAUKIER
DRIVEWAY
SITE
INDICATES EXTENT OF FULL HEIGHT "FLOODPROOFING OF BAEMENT
AND RETAINING WALLS TO I'-O" ABOVE , < '\
BASE FLOOD LEVEL 9.6 .
EXHIBIT 1-A
Page 114
o
riOOB BANRIER A l DRIVE
ro
^
FLOipiJWALl.(SHOWN OPEi;)
CROSS SECTION
FULL "FLOOOPBOOFING " OF BASEMENT PER SECIION 1-C
EXHIBIT 1-B
Page 115
WALLS TO BE DESIGNEIU 10 WIII ISI AND
SURCHARGE OF FI.OOO WAIE:R(FL<]OU LOAOS)
PER IBC ANU HFPA(20O3), AND SEI/ASCE-7
(MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS EUR BUILDINGS AND OHIER STRUCItlHES)
AND FEMA BIJ1.I.EIIN 3-93AS 10 HVOHOSTAIIC ANI) SUOrANCY RESISIIHG
DESIGN
GRADE
·— I
LIVING AREA
, n-OORsiRUcnmE
T
BASEMEtNT GARAGE
BUIlllINt; WAILS
CONCRE IE (IE I AIMING WALLS
WAIERPIIOOFIHG PH01EC110N
· MAX FLOOD ELEVATION 9. 6
O
,. !_.
1
' . ; . T
1
. ·
t
..-
1
...,-_ , .
DISCIIAUGE 1 0 STROM DRAIN SYSIEM Wi l l i BACKFLOW PREVENIION
DRAIN BOARD DIHECI WA1ER IO SUMP
Pi-PPPP
WALL WAIERPROOFING
I . I '
.b. . - ;. - ;- .!- :- :::- ;::. ·Vr-.T-r--
J
;;- v r- . - :|i
i WAIEHCHODFING ' ' - \ ~'
)6 "MIN. BASE SLAB
PRO IFCI ION SLAB
GRID TYPE DRAINAGE
UNDER SLAB 1 0 SUMP
DRAIN SDMP-DISCAMRGE Wi l l i PUMP 1 0 SIORMDUAIM SYSIEM
STEBBINS RESIDENCE
SCHEMATIC FLOOD PROOFING DESIGN (DRY FLOODPROOFING)
BASEMENT GARAGE
EXHIBIT 1-C
Page 116
T_
v\
C5
CO
4 i *
i to - ir- o- j i tr i i o - Iro - j r r j n r j ro - | r- ir j
i-s- . — : sEenGhf-A=ft
sniEiwcALftnoui r
I'l l " ·lOCENIEROP ARM
.I/IB'mmuFR (WSKEI — ,
3/111(1 1/7*11 COUniER ^
si INK sr AIHIES siea oous
i/n'sr^LriArE
(i renniRHEDPWiEij
)"PI(mFO PANEL
J';0" TO CENIER OT AIIM
v i/i" x i/i" mrssimE rmie
SUNK SIMM FJRStrn. MX 15
3/B"D«UllfiD « l» lAPPEII IO
ngatvE .VH' Si wm ESS not.i
i - x ;· x i/i" siniicniB/u.
AIU". Nn*e
3' 3/i' x i/J' mf s^iw rmiE
SECIION G-G
SCALE: 3" " I'-O"
7A- 0' WirER WAIL IO WIPER WALL
3/i (Trnitcti v r
j f ' x I u r 0 n
SIBIK SIMMERS
t)r TUBE
3'1/r
IM" rPB?llRE riA l l
r x j- x i/r
SITOTCIURAL
ALUM. AMGtE
rncKo rwi rB iwAd .
SCAlf: 3 ' '
looilBrcak
Revolutionary Flood Control
Auloiiiotic nomJoolca - no poojjle. r»i ptuvcrf
SCALI:
DRAW
RE: A
AS NOiED
N BV: CWJJ
>DENDUH~2E
CUSIOMER NAME WJIHHELD
2't·-0·
,
x f r- 2"
VEHICULAR GATE # # # #
TLOOOBUEAK SERIAL # # # # ff
GA'IE PLAN LAYOUr AND SECIION
DAIE:
03-28-05
StlEEl':
2 UP 7
Page 117
7-5 i /r
A1.UMH, AMGLE-
PAH AMD PAN SUPHJIK IIJBIHG
X l/4" CI IANNEL VERIICAL
·,v ,'("XI/r CHANNEL tlORI/.ONIAL
EINISI 10 GRADE
r-a /a er- iiiNGE-
JEV
5--6 3/8-
(11) 5
n
X 7" X 1/B' RIBBED PANEI5 -
miiiiDiniiDiiiiiiPiDTnTrrii] 11111 LLLDinnin
COKCREIE
~i-~a~
EXIST ING CONLRE IE
CON 11NWU5 DRAINAGE 1 ROUGH
y-3 t / r
1
T.
JfiL
ILy
G
\
r —
\
1
r
/
/
-PANSIRUCTURF.
/ ~
P
.
x-w
_ , „
6".
— 7X?. iunr:
_
7'-l 1/8-
3
,
-9 W
II
lltJIEtOR —
1/8" i/?
_
n vm
JD
3/r_
.u/r l
€1
3 1/7"
3 1/7
i/n
i
J
-
r-l
IIINGEIJi:IAILA
SHJUED 1
-
IV
·
__
IIIJIF_ wm.
i/i" w nn
·
-
'' . ; '
Ji /
11"
·
*a—
6 1/1
/ aimt SIWHLBS sun . sous
·7 - X l /l - n i B SWEMAIi ;
Atmin . rAtt-
6I/7
-
SECIION I-I
SCALI: Y * r - i r
6 1/7-
.NEW.CDN
1NI5IIEUGRAI
T
ne
V'V
SECTION E-E
a.fjsfconisinoH
SCALE: 1 l/JT = I'-O"
o
CD
nw.Ria/vss
DRAIN IHLEI GRATE
/ — 7X7X1/1" ANGIf:
lUJJLUI
· ALUMH. PAH
SECTJON C-C
5CAIE: 1 T/Z" = IMT
FlooilBrcak
Revolutionary Flood Control
Aulomo l i c Mpodi jalL'i - n o |)eoplc. l u ' po i» e i t
SCAIi:
AS NOTED
DRAWN BY:
CWJJ
RE: ADDENDUM / f s
CUSrOMER NAME WJIMHELD
24'-()·
,
x G ' - r
VEHICULAR GATE ff##/f
n.OODBREAK SERIAL # fl # # #
GENERAL SEOIONS AND DEIAILS
DAIE:
03-28-05
SMEEI:
-y OF 7
Page 118
e '- i i s / i i r
1 " \
HD
l l / l "
nibirDimiiinimmitrjimi^^
7X2GAIEIU0 1NG
^ \
- . 5 . —
o
ay
1 i / r
. z i/z-
SECTION D-D
SCALE: 1 1/7" « i'-O "
^ — S / l 5 - r i l I g r 5 I l i a i W E I D X 2 . 5 - .
LOMR $> 5 " O.C, CEMIER OH 2"X 5" SEAMS. lYP .
rDR ADDITIONAL WEI DS A l REIENIIOH ARTlS,
SEE DETAIL B .
"V
1" tUtLCTT"IBIIIC"
,— " i /c i i / r s m
w
0^ "*"
N
. ·tltlillOMWM
/ — 1 i / r i m' fUTsnx i t
/ I BMt HnXABIl '
v J Mitt LnviTirAn*
rmxr
t w n -
SECTION K-K
OTENFOSIMWI
SOU_E: 3 " " l - O "
:f=ge
rxKiiiMi nafjnue
34
-SECUONI7I:
(KbH i i
" ' » fip* SfflEnliii!
JM p j rn jwo *
'—1/1- mnwo unn
- i / r "imiOB wm* i v um i im .
F HDU5TOUAHCMOK «D". I
FloodBreah
Revolutionary Flood Control
Aulpn ip f lc /lo u'Jg ulg ' - " o ttpop lc, 'i n f jcwc-rl
SCALE:
AS N01ED
DRAWN BY: CWJJ
RE: ADDENDUM ^
CUSIOMER NAME WITHHELD
2 W X G-2"
VEHICULAKGATE####
FLO ODB REAK S ER IA L f f # f f # #
GENERALSEDIONS AND DEIAILS
D A IE :
0 3 - 2 8 - 0 5
S M EE I:
5 HE 7
Page 119
s -
'*&
\
GASKEL PRESSURE
BRACKET'
s
#
7TC5" EXInllSIOH
I/1-I1AIE51IRIKXJJID .
IMI3I OCVirjl MOUIir OM
UHDERSII OTGHIE
?«TtmEiirjii>BAf :» :As
ITTI- JMIY HIIIOUHI
IAIOI DEVICE
ir KJNG wnn 10 z-x r
E«1RIKIOMS, EACH SIDE
FAD! ?' X Z
-
LEHI
r wire MATE
MI. RETBnioMMv n
S1MIIAR AI TAH.
'tlEBOlA Kp
vmn
EX
IH J'XS " I/J" V
'"IAN OF ANCHOR
SURFACE MOUNTED LATCI-
SO\LE: r - r-O"
')-"
PUN OE ANCI (OR @i PAN
O
won iDPArinAiE\ i/<" /
o-
i i /i -
1 1 /f
ASOIUR
I/I" AHO UH
FloiuilBreah
DETAIL D -REIENIION ARM ANQIORS
rjCALEJjOl-ff! :
Revolutionary Flood Control
At/lntnuHc Moui l i lUlcl · nV (>'!it[ilc " ti [)t. ii»v t(
SCALE:
AS NOT ED
DRAWN BY:
CWJJ
RE: ADDENDUM /h.
CUS"TOMER NAME WITHHELD
lA'AT x ff-Z"
VEHICULAR GATE Hit if if
PLOODBREAK SERIAL ff ft 9 If 9
GENERAL SEOIONS AND DEfAItS
DAIE:
03-28-05
SMEEI:
G \Vr 7
Page 120
o
o
2
/
r-o"
.cn
oo
1PP
3 = = != ^
Ll
BiJt) pri i i
1,
5'-6 3/ r
nrjfi
O
(HUB
no s iii:w
BLli!
mitn urip
SIZIB
- ·i
J
. : . l 1__
:f=]
8'-l 7/8'
I'-B 5/8" 5'-6 az-i"
L OE DRAIN 't OF DRAIN <J UP DRAIN
FAN AND DRAIN LAYOUT
SCALE l/r- I'- O"
1-
J-
z
Q
O
FHouilBrcaK
Revolulionary Flood Control
/lulonitiHc fh'oiiifulci · no fmmili:. nn fjiu'c'I
SCALE:
ASN01ED
DRAWN HY: CWJJ
RE: ADDENDUM /9\
CUSTOMER NAME WIT HHELD
21'-!)" x f t'- T
· VEHICULAR GATE if if ff if
.FLOODBREAK SERIAL # # f f ##
PAH PIAN lAYOUT AND SECIION
DAIE:
03-28-05
SHEET':
7 or 7
Page 121
001169
'l-iooOc
{
^C V-o^f^
& N
O v X-
O eron ^ v ^ -x
C
-
: . · «
fv
? i
·D -
fC
Page 122
001171
4 %/w ^^
/
rloodbreak is a flood barrier that auto-
maticaliy rises in times of - f looding to
protect your property, It can be placed in
front of any opening and be designed for
any flood water level.
Floodbreak resembles a hinged box that
is recessed into the ground in f ront of
the opening. Because it is recessed, it
ays completely flat to the surrounding
area, "allowing unrestricted access at all
times. It has been engineered f or extreme
loads. Example: Floodbreak is able to with-
stand the weight of a fuiiy ioaded truck-
driv ing over itrrhe top of the barrier can
be covered with almost any finish mat ' .£$=·
rial, making it biend in with the
surrounding areas.
he greatest attribute of this product is
that the flood water makes if work .
here is no human or eiectrical
input needed for this system to operate,
ts operation is very simple.
The recessed box is attached to the local
storm drainage system, which allows
normal rain accumulation to simply drain
away, When the storm drain systems
have filled up, the box can no longer
drain and water.starts to accumulate.
As the water rises in the box, the buoy-
ancy of the lid starts to lift the barrier.
Rubber flanges on the sides and at the
hinge prevent water from passing
around the barrier, The barrier will rise
with the water and will lower as the water
recedes.
T
- Uai— jmi JII. , i s hi f i j — ' " """ " lu. !ME«SBf»>,3«MBMf ll
/ / ,
Page 123
001173
OOD BARRIER PROJECT LIST
Page 124
OollVJj
Unlimited Applications, lnc
7077 Southwest 46th Street · Miami · Florida · 33133
Phone (305) 663-9333 · CC. 93BS00433 · Fax (305) 663-0603
A PROJECT LIST
www.floodbarrier.com
Her» is a list of some of our fiood barrier projects completed (over S 5,000.00). If you need a complete fist of all
our proiect please let me know. You will notice that our this, list shows a mix of new construction and
retrofittsT Most of the contractors listed are well know and established.
Project: · Williams & Sonoma
Address: 1035 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor: Fisher Development
1485 Bayshore Drive
San Francisco, Caifornia
Project: Pottery Bam
Address: 1045 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor; Fisher Development
'(485 Bayshore Drive
San Francisco, California
Project:
Address:
. Portofino Retail Space
500 South Pointe Drive
V*VM i-^^a;
Contractor: Fisher Deveiopment
1485 Bayshore Drive
San Francisco, Caifornia
Project: Quittner Building
Address: 532-543 Lincoln Road
Mi3
r
*
>
' ^
c,
'
=>
'*h " I T IHS
Contractor: Groden Stamp Construction
65 N.W. 158th Street
H. Miami Beach, Florida
Project: 3e3e Clothes
Address: 1025 Lincoln-Road
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Groden Stamp Construction
55 N.W. 158th Street
ISL Miami Beach, Fiorida
Project: Polo Sport
Address: 740 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor; Groden Stamp Construction
65 M.W. 15Bth Street
N. Miami Beach, Fiorids
Project: Eastview Hotel
Address: 1515 Washington Avenue
Miami Beach, Fiorids.
Contractor: Groden Stamp Construction
35 N.W. 168th Street
N. Miami Beach, Fiorida
Project: Club Monaco Clothiers '
Address; 524 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Groden Stamp Construction
55 N.W. 158th Street
N. Miami Beach. Florida
Project: Portofino Office Center
Address: 404 Washington Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Miller Solomon Construction
6491 N.W. 17th Street
N. Miami, Florida
Project: 711 Retail Space
Address; 711 Washington Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor; Ragosa Enginering
46 N.W, 35 Street
Miami, Fiorida
2_
Page 125
O.ullVH
( f-loctp $flrr)t*->t&*'*
J
7
- ' / · V f L5
y
ppbisc©
-
" ""f j^hora Shop
ACtdress: ,721 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Fiorida
contractor; Spectrum Builders
1231 S.W. 132 Court
Miami, Florida
Project: Nathan Ratner Buiiding
Address: 1025-35 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: DA Construction
1551 N.W. S2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida 33126
Project: Stanley Meyers Clinic
Address: 1221 71st Street
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor: Pino-Fonticielia Construction
1140 W, Flagler Av enue
Miami, Florida
Project: Ameritrust-BanK
Address: 447 41st Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Glace £ Company
1006 N. Federal Highway
Lake Worth, Florida
Project: Ballet Vallet Parking & Shops
Address: 700 Block Collins Avenue"
Miami Beach, Fiorids
Contractor Goldman Properties
804 Ocean Drive
Miami Beach, Florida
Project: Multi-Use Building
Address; 763 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Goldman Properties
804 Ocean Drive
Miami Beach, Fiorida
. rroject; 'Aiton rioad r;=rt£aii Gerusr
Address: 1570 Alton Road
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor Art Construction Company
349 Greco Avenue
Coral Gabies, Florida
Address:
475 41st Street
Miami Beach, Florida
·Contractor: Waas, Phillips, Adier
1400 N.w. 107th Avenue
Miami, Fiorida
Pro ject West Avenue Parking Garage
Address; 1000 West Avenue
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor Whiting Turner Construction
1000 Corporate Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Fiorida
.Project: Altantic Center
Address: 119 Washington Avenue
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor: Buildtech, LLC
407 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Project: Biscayne Village
Address; 1901 Biscayne Bivd.
Miami, Florida
Contractor; Chase Construction
8491 N.W. 17th Street
Miami, Florida
-Project: Home Depot
Address: 4000 Route # 4
Keene, New Hampshire
Contractor: R.L. Spencer
222 Highbridge Street
Fayettev ille, North Carolina
Project: Bayshore Golfcourse
Address: 2500 Bayshore Drive
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Tran Construction
505 Lincoln 'Road
Miami Beach, Fiordia
Project: Minute Man, lnc
Address: 304 S. Redding Road
Birmingham, Alabama
Contractor: Oil Equipement Company
555 South Avenue, #4
Birmingham, Alabama
··7
P>
Page 126
001177
C ffacv*' > / &J
^ Pro ject: Rivertowne Country Club
Address; 8555 Rivertowne Road
Mount Pleasant, North Carolina
Contractor; Centex Construction
3001 Riv ertowh Parkway
Mount Pleasant, North Carolina
Project: Outback Steakhouse
Address: Clearwater Beach Road
Clearwater, Florida
Contractor: Venture Construction
15 N. Falkenberg Road.
Tampa, Florida
Project: The Shops At South Beach
Address: 500 Collins Av enue
·Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Suffolk Construction
515 N. Fiagler Road
West Palm Beach, Fiorida
.Project: The Cosmopolitan
Address: 122 Washington Av enue
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor Suffolk Construction
515 hi. Flagier Road ·
West Palm Beach, Florid;
Project: The Ratner Buiiding
Address: 1023-1036 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor; Groden Stamp Construction
65 N.W. 158th Street
N. Miami Beach, Florida
Project:
Address:
Summit Brickell
1200 S. Miami Avenue
Miami, Florida
Contractor; Bovis Lend Lease
1200 S. Miami Avenue
Miami, Florida
Project: Reyos De! Sol
Address: 185 N.W. 13th Av enue
Miami, Florida
Contractor: Deiant Construction
7380 N.W. 77th Court
Miami, Florida
Project: Ballast Pointe Park
Address: 1500 Interbay Drive
Tampa, Florida
Contractor: La Chase Construction
1025 Oak Avenue
Tampa, Fiorida
Project: War Verteran's Field House
Address: 555 Route 855
Huntington. Pennsylvania
Contractor: Poole Anderson Construction
Box 575
Huntington;
Project: The Solara Spa & Resort
Address: 8301 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
Contractor: Welbro Construction
BOO Trafalgar Court
Orlando, Florida
Pro ject Levi Shop
Address: S25 Collins Av enue
Miami Beach, Fiorida
Contractor: Brodson Construction
157 NE 39th Street
Miami, Florida
Project: Vip Honda
Address: North Plainfied, NJ
Downtown
Contractor: One Key Construction
Brooklyn, NY
Project:
Address:
Mary Brickell Village
South Miami Ave.
2nd Street, Miami
Contractor: Bovis Lend Lease
1200 S, Miami Avenue
Miami, Fiorida
Pro ject-
Address:
Met One
100 Biscayne Blvd .
Downtown Miami
Contractor: Suffolk Construction
515 N. Flagler Road
P
Page 127
001178
West Palm Beach, Florida
Project: 11 Lugano
.Address: 333 NE 32nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 3330S
Contractor: Moss and .Associates.
228 SE 12th Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Project: Telefutura Television Station
Address: 145 NW 89th Place
Miami, Fl. 33166
Contractor: J.E Gamas
4241 Palm Lane
Miami, Florida 33147-3345
Project: The Meridian
Address: 2000 Meridian Ave.
Miami Beach, PL 33139
Contractor: Kauffman Lynn
· 2151 N.W. Boca Raton Blvd.
Suite 100
Boca Raton, Fi 33431
Project: Seybold Pointe Condominum
815 N.W, 11th Street
Contractor Deiant Construction
7380 N.W. 77th Court .
Mtat-ni Fiorida 33155
Project Brae informatics Centre
Address: .2100 island Drive
Cayman Brae, Cayman islands
Contractor: Brae Informatics Centre
2100 Island Drive,
Cayman Brae, Cayman,Islands
Project · Digital Process Center
13525 N.W. 25th Street
Miami, FI 33165
Contractor; J.E Gamas
4241 Palm Lane
Project; Ssa Forest Beach Club
Address: Exercise Room-
New Port Richie, Fiorids 34652
Contractor: Quality Reconstruction
5500 Sea Forest Drive
New Port Richie, .Florida 34552
5
